MU.  WELLS’S  REPORT. 


S  P  E  E  C  H 


OF 


HON.  WILLIA 


DELIVERED 


! 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JANUARY  11,  1870. 


WASHINGTON: 

F.  &  J.  RIVES  &  GEO.  A.  BAILEY, 

REPORTERS  AND  PRINTERS  OF  THE  DEBATES  OF  CONGRESS. 

1870. 


\ 

«*• 

A 


Digitized  tey  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


> 

https://archive.org/details/mrwellsreportOOkell 


MR.  WELLS’S  REPORT. 


The  House  being  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  state  of  the  Union— 

Mr.  KELLEY  said : 

Mr.  Chairman  :  I  have  more  than  once 
endeavored  to  impress  upon  Congress  the  fact 
that  fire  is  the  material  force  or  nervous  power, 
and  iron  and  steel  the  muscles  of  our  more 
modern  civilization.  The  trip-hammer,  with 
its  wonderful  power  and  more  wonderful  pre¬ 
cision  and  delicacy  of  stroke,  has  supplanted 
the  sledge-hammer,  and  circular  and  gang- 
saws  do  in  a  day  the  work  at  which  the  hand¬ 
saw  labored  for  months.  Machine  tools,  such 
as  lathes,  drills,  planers,  and  shaping  machines, 
impelled  like  the  trip-hammer  and  the  saws 
of  which  I  have  spoken  by  the  unwearying 
steam  engine,  itself  a  mere  embodiment  of 
coal  and  iron  ore,  increase  the  perfection  and 
amount  of  the  artisan’ s  product  and  relieve  him 
of  the  exhausting  toil  which  shortened  the  life 
of  his  father  and  made  him  prematurely  old. 

Nations,  too,  are  subject  to  these  new  con¬ 
ditions.  However  free  their  institutions  may 
be,  a  ,people  who  cannot  supply  thei#  own 
demand  for  iron  and  steel ,  but  purchase  it  from 
foreigners  beyond  seas,  are  not  independent ; 
nor  is  their  dependence  merely  commercial ; 
they  are  politically  dependent ;  and  if  the  nation 
on  which  they  depend  for  these  essential  ele¬ 
ments  of  modern  warfare  be  arrogant  and 
treacherous,  as  England  proved  herself  during 
our  late  civil  war,  they  must  endure  contumely 
and  outrage  with  unresisting  humility.  Com¬ 
merce  and  war  both  demand  iron  ships;  we 
tell  the  weight  of  our  guns,  whether  of  steel 
or  iron,  by  the  ton,  and  that  of  our  steel-pointed 
shot  by  the  hundred  weight ;  and  while  we 
depend  upon  her  for  the  material  of  which  to 
construct  ships,  guns,  and  shot,  the  statesmen 
of  England  know  they  can  trifle  with  and  post¬ 
pone  the  settlement  of  the  Alabama  claims. 
Able  as  we  were  to  crush  with  irresistible  power 
a  gigantic  rebellion,  they  know  that  until  we 
shall  have  furnaces,  forges,  rolling-mills,  ma- . 
chine-shops,  and  skilled  artisans  enough  to 
produce  and  fashion  a  supply  of  iron  and  steel 


sufficient  for  our  wants  in  peace  and  war,  we 
cannot  engage  in  war  with  England  because 
we  depend  on  her  for  these  primary  essentials 
to  successful  modern  warfare. 

I  am  impelled  to  renew  these  suggestions  by 
the  report  of  David  A.  Wells,  esq.,  Special 
Commissioner  of  Revenue,  which  abounds  in 
propositions  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
country,  and  which  if  adopted  by  Congress  will 
compel  us  to  occupy  a  subordinate  position 
among  nations,  though  our  population  may 
equal  that  of  all  Europe,  as  our  territory  already 
does  that  of  the  whole  family  of  European 
Powers.  As  I  read  page  after  page  of  this  ex¬ 
traordinary  paper  I  became  more  earnestly 
anxious  to  detect  the  full  force  of  its  sugges¬ 
tions,  and,  if  possible,  to  divine  the  motive  or 
spirit  that  prompted  them.  As  an  expression 
of  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Wells  this  paper  can  do 
but  little  harm,  but  its  circulation  in  Europe 
under  the  sanction  of  Congress  will  impair  our 
credit  and  arrest  the  tide  of  emigration  now 
flowing  in  upon  us  in  unprecedented  volume. 
It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  notice  to  the  capitalists 
of  Europe  that  as  a  people,  notwithstanding 
the  amazing  expansion  of  our  country,  we  are 
tending  toward  bankruptcy;  and  to  the  op¬ 
pressed  laborers  of  other  lands,  that  our  work¬ 
ing  people  are  becoming  not  only  relatively 
but  absolutely  poorer  from  year  to  year,  and 
that  this  is  therefore  not  the  country  to  which 
poor  but  aspiring  men  should  emigrate.  It 
demonstrates  to  the  satisfaction  of  Mr.  Wells’s 
admirers  and  clients  that  though  our  wealth 
increased  during  the  last  decade  one  hundred 
and  twentysix  per  cent.,  its  utmost  increase 
during  this  decade  can  be  but  sixty-five  and 
eight  hundredths  percent.;  and  that  instead  of 
the  census  of  1870  showing,  as  it  is  universally 
conceded  it  will,  largely  over  forty-three  thou¬ 
sand  million  dollars,  that  the  grand  total  can 
by  no  possibility  be  over  $23,400,000,000. 

Time  will  not  permit  me  to  point  out. the 
fallacies  in  this  portion  of  his  report,  as  I  would 
gladly  do;  and  I  proceed  at  once  to  invite  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  points  which  seem 
to  require  more  special  animadversion.  But, 


before  turning  to  these,  let  me  request  gentle¬ 
men  from  Massachusetts,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and 
New  York,  if  they  have  not  already  done  so, 
to  turn  to  pages  24  et  seq.,  and  learn  how  rap¬ 
idly  their  respective  States  are  sinking  into 
poverty,  and  how  much  poorer  their  people  are 
per  capita  than  they  were  in  1860.  The  sug¬ 
gestion  will  doubtless  surprise  them  ;  yet  so  cun¬ 
ningly  does  Mr.  Wells  present  it  that  foreigners 
who  are  not  familiar  with  the  truth  so  patent 
to  every  observer  will  be  deceived  by  it  and 
feel  they  had  better — 

“Bear  those  ills  they  have, 

Than  fly  to  others  that  they  know  not  of.” 


One  of  the  processes  by  which  Mr.  Wells 
sustains  his  theory,  though  not  wanting  in 
ingenuity,  is  very  simple.  It  is  to  assume  that 
everything  is  now  worth  from  thirty- five  to 
thirty-nine  per  cent,  less  than  it  was  at  the 
time  with  which  he  proposes  his  comparison. 
We  know  that  wheat  and  flour  and  every 
variety  of  cotton  and  woolen  goods  are  cheaper 
now  than  they  were  in  1860.  But  Mr.  Wells’s 
theory  is,  that  as  there  is  a  difference  in  the 
market  value  of  gold  and  greenbacks,  commodi¬ 
ties  of  domestic  production  ought  to  be  dearer ; 
and  applying  this  theory  to  such  facts  as  he 
sees  fit  to  present,  he  assumes  that  they  are, 
and  so  establishes  the  melancholy  warning  to 
all  persons  proposing  to  emigrate  that  this  is 
not  the  country  to  which  they  should  come. 
No  demonstration  of  the  falsity  of  his  theory 
or  of  its  absurdity  induces  him  to  halt,  but  in 
spite  of  these  he  presses  onward  and  applies  it 
in  every  case.  When  examining  his  last  annual 
report  I  confronted  him  with  the  large  accu¬ 
mulation  of  deposits  in  the  savings-banks  as 
evidence  that  the  workingmen  of  the  country 
were  not  then,  as  he  asserted,  “growing  poorer, 
while  the  rich  were  growing  richer,”  and,  after 
a  year’s  reflection,  he  answers  my  array  of  facts 
in  this  wise  : 


“Again,  the  returns  of  savings-banks  are  often  re¬ 
ferred  to  as  showing  a  highly  prosperous  condition 
of  the  masses.  Properly  considered,  however,  they 
indicate  a  very  different  state  of  things.  Thus,  the 
first  and  almost  the  only  fact  which  attracts  the  at¬ 
tention  of  a  mere  superficial  observer  in  examining 
these  statistics  is  a  large  apparent  increase  in  depos¬ 
its  from  1860  to  1868  or  1869.  But  an  intelligent  ex¬ 
amination  will  at  once  show  that  a  very  great  part 
of  the  apparent  accumulation  referred  to  is  mere 
inflation.  For  example,  let  us  take  the  case  of  Mas¬ 
sachusetts,  where  the  conditions  for  increase  would 
seem  to  be  most  favorable  : 


In  1860  the  savings-banks  deposits  in  this  State  wore, 

in  round  numbers .  $45,000,000 

In  January,  1869,  in  currency,  $95,000,000, 
or  in  gold, at  133 .  71,000,000 


Increase  in  eight  years .  $26,000,000 

or  $6,000,000  less  than  the  aggregate  deposits  of  1860 
would  ha, ye  amounted  to  in  the  same  time  at  a  com¬ 
pound  interest  of  seven  per  cent.;  or  in  other  words, 
the  deposits  of  1860  were  not  made  good  in  1869,  with¬ 
out  reference  to  the  increase  of  population,  even  if 
we  reckon  only  their  natural  increase  at  compound 
interest.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  .some  cause 
has  eaten  into  the  accumulation  which  existed  eight 
years  previously,  and  has  occasioned  the  withdrawal 
of  a  portion  of  that  accumulation.” 


If  tins  statement  be  fair  the  deposits  in  the 
savings-banks  of  the  country  fluctuated  fearfully 
on  the  24th  of  September  last,  when  gold  ranged 


from  123  to  165  in  an  hour,  and  such  of  the 
depositors  as  were  in  that  end  of  the  New  York 
gold-room  where  it  was  selling  at  135  were 
vastly  richer  than  those  who  were  at  the  same 
moment  in  the  other  end  at  which  Albert  Spires 
was  buying  it  for  160.  A  story  told  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  Mr.  Spires’s  operations  on  that  occa¬ 
sion  seems  to  me  to  illustrate  the  value  of  Mr. 
Well’s  theory.  It  is  said  that  a  young  man 
without  capital  who  had  found  his  way  to  mem¬ 
bership  of  the  gold  exchange,  but  had  been 
bankrupted  even  of  credit  by  the  operations 
of  the  preceding  day  or  two,  stood  near  Mr. 
Spires,  and  as  that  gentleman  cried  “  One  sixty 
for  one  million,”  tapped  him  on  the  shoulder 
and  said,  “Taken.”  “Same  price  for  two 
millions  more,”  cried  Spires.  “  Taken,”  said 
the  young  bankrupt;  and  so  until  Spires  had 
bid,  and  he  taken  his  bids  for  $13,000,000. 
They  then  separated,  and  the  young  bankrupt 
drawing  aside,  with  a  pencil  upon  the  back  of  a 
letter  calculated  his  profits,  and  turning  to  a 
friend  triumphantly  exclaimed,  “I  have  just 
made $750,000 out ofold  Spires.”  “Why,”  said 
a  by-stander,  “you  do  not  expect  to  get  any 
of  it,  do  you?”  “  No  ;  certainly  not,”  said  he, 
“but,  blast  him,  I  thought  I  would  give  him 
gold  enough.”  This  operation  between  a  luna¬ 
tic  and  a  bankrupt,  neither  of  whom  owned  a 
dollar  of  gold,  and  by  which  neither  forfeited 
a  cent,  had  about  as  much  relation  to  their 
fortunes  as  the  market  price  of  gold  has  upon 
the  price  of  domestic  commodities,  or  deposits 
in  the  banks  to  which  Mr.  Wells  applies  it. 

In  farther  proof  of  its  absurdity  I  invite  at¬ 
tention  to  the  fact  that  if  his  theory  be  correct 
the  depositors  in  the  savings-banks  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts  have  since  the  preparation  of  his  re¬ 
port,  by  no  effort  of  their  own,  without  increase 
of  industry  or  unusual  economy  on  their  part, 
but  .by  his  magic  power,  acquired  more  than 
$9,000,000,  as  gold  is  now  not  at  133  but  at 
120;  and  that  they  will,  if  they  do  not  make 
haste  and  withdraw  their  deposits,  and  we  go 
on  as  we  have  gone  for  the  last  two  or  three 
montrfe  under  the  financial  management  of 
Grant  and  Boutwell,  soon  make  $15,000,000 
more  in  the  same  easy,  and,  I  fear,  unhallowed 
way;  for  when  gold  comes  to  par  even  Mr. 
Wells,  with  all  his  ingenious  effrontery,  will  not 
deny  that  having  been  able  to  maintain  a  deposit 
of  but  $45,000,000  in  1860,  they  have  in  eight 
years  become  able  to  maintain  one  of  $95,000- 
000,  which  amount  they  will  be  able  to  draw 
in  gold  or  redeemable  currency,  though  they 
deposited  greenbacks  when  gold  was  at  more 
than  200.  Before  parting  with  this  subject  I 
beg  leave  to  inform  the  committee  and  Com¬ 
missioner  Wells  that  at  the  close  of  1869  the 
aggregate  deposits  at  rest  in  the  savings-banks 
of  Massachusetts  were  notas  he  states  $95,000- 
000,  but  $112,000,000,  showing  that  the  labor¬ 
ing  people  of  that  State,  who  he  says  are  eating 
up  their  former  savings  so  rapidly,  have  added 
$17,000,000  to  their  interest  bearing  invest¬ 
ment  in  the  last  year. 

The  prominent  characteristics  of  Mr.  Wells’s 
report  are  audacity  and  advocacy  of  the  interests 
of  England  and  her  American  colonies.  That 


5 


it  is  ingenious  and  plausible  cannot  be  denied  ; 
but  that  it  is  so  does  not  in  my  judgment  fur¬ 
nish  proof  of  the  Commissioner’s  ability  or 
evidence  of  his  possession  of  well-grounded 
convictions  on  industrial  questions.  Indeed, 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  suggestions  which  are 
most  earnestly  pressed  contravene  those  em¬ 
bodied  in  his  former  reports,  and  his  avowal 
that  in  offering  them  “  he  has  placed  himself 
in  antagonism  to  many  with  whom  he  was 
formerly  in  close  agreement,”  afford  ample 
ground  for  doubt  on  both  points. 

“  Remember,  gentlemen,”  said  the  expe¬ 
rienced  merchant  who  now  so  ably  fills  the  office 
of  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York;  when 
conferring  with  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  “  that  the  legal  ability  of  England  and 
the  continent  is  constantly  retained  by  foreign 
manufacturers  to  indicate  the  means  by  which 
your  tariffs  may  be  evaded.”  Mr.  Wells  visited 
our  transatlantic  rivals  in  his  official  capacity, 
and  while  among  them  doubtless  availed  him¬ 
self  of  the  ability  of  their  large  array  of  able  and 
well-paid  counsel.  Whether  he  also  was  retained 
is  for  the  present  the  subject  of  conjecture.  But 
that  he  enforces  as  “opinions  and  recommend¬ 
ations  which  have  been  forced  upon  him  by 
conviction’  ’  the  wishes  of  the  English  manufac¬ 
turers  there  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  report, 
as  I  propose  to  show. 

The  most  audacious  of  Mr.  Wells’s  assertions, 
and  one  that  pervades  the  whole  report,  is  that 
customs  duties  are  always  a  tax  on  the  con 
sumer,  increasing  the  price  of  the  imported 
article  on  which  they  are  levied  and  enabling 
the  home  producer  to  realize  undue  profits  by 
keeping  production  steadily  below  the  current 
demand  for  the  commodity  he  produces.  Were 
Mr.  Wells  a  tyro,  and  this  report  his  first  pub¬ 
lication,  charity  would  deem  this  a  blunder 
and  ascribe  it  to  ignorance  ;  but  he  is  a  man  of 
large  experience,  and  has  written  much,  and 
reference  to  any  of  the  publications  which  led 
to  his  appointment  to  the  eommissionership, 
or  to  his  preceding  reports,  will  convict  him  of 
basing  this  official  paper  on  a  principle  the  fal¬ 
sity  of  which  he  has  time  and  again  abundantly 
established.  His  bad  faith  in  this  is  proven, 
I  think,  by  a  single  extract  from  his  report 
made  December,  1867,  in  which,  speaking  of 
the  higher  duties  he  then  advised  Congress, to 
put  on  steel,  he  said: 

“On  steel  much  higher  rates  of  duty  than  those 
recommended  upon  iron  are  submitted.  Although 
these  rates  seem  much  higher,  and  are  protested 
against  by  not  a  few  American  consumers  of  steel,  yet 
the  evidence  presented  to  the  Commissioner  tends  to 
establish  the  fact  that  if  any  less  are  granted  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  a  most  important  and  desirable  branch 
of  domestic  industry  will,  owing  to  the  present  cur¬ 
rency  derangement  and  the  high  price  and  scarcity 
of  skilled  labor,  be  arrested,  if  not  entirely  prostrated. 
This  is  claimed  to  be  more  especially  true  in  regard 
to  steel  of  the  higher  grades  or  qualities.  It  is  also 
represented  to  the  Commissioner  that  since  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  the  manufacture  of  these  grades  of  steel 
in  the  United  States,  or  since  1859,  the  price  of  foreign 
steel  of  similar  qualities  has  been  very  considerably 
reduced  through  the  effect  of  the  American  compe¬ 
tition,  and  that  the  whole  country  in  this  way  has 
gained  more  than  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the 
tax  levied  as  a  protection  for  the  American  steel  man¬ 
ufacture,  which  has  grown  up  under  its  influence.” 


Mr.  .Wells  can  dispute  none  of  the  facts 
asserted  in  the  foregoing  extract,  which  prove 
that  prior  to  the  close  of  1867  highly  protect¬ 
ive  duties  on  steel  had  not  been  a  tax  on  but 
aboon  to  the  consumer ;  so  great  a  boon, indeed, 
that  by  enlarging  the  supply  and  increasing 
competition  they  had  so  far  reduced  the  price 
of  steel  that,  to  quote  his  words  again,  “the 
whole  country  in  this  way  has  gained  more 
than  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the  tax  levied 
as  a  protection  for  the  American  steel  manu¬ 
facture,  which  has  grown  up  under  its  influ¬ 
ence.” 

You,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  many  of  our  cola¬ 
borers  on  this  floor,  are  interested  in  the  exten¬ 
sion  and  improvement  of  our  magnificent  rail¬ 
road  system,  and  I  propose  to  illustrate  the 
treachery  of  the  Commissioner  by  briefly  refer¬ 
ring  to  the  effect  of  high  productive  duties  on 
Bessemer  steel  rails.  In  1864  there  was  no 
establishment  in  the  United  States  for  the 
manufacture  of  such  rails.  The  lowest  price 
at  which  an  American  company  could  buy 
them  in  England  was  $150  per  ton  cash,  gold, 
including  freight  to  New  York  or  Philadel¬ 
phia.  No  English  maker  would  sell  them  at 
less.  Agents  of  the  Pennsylvania  Central, 
and  Philadelphia,  Wilmington,  and  Baltimore 
roads  went  abroad  and  canvassed  the  market, 
and  having  been  assured  that  such  rails  could 
not  be  produced  and  sold  at  a  living  profit  for 
a  lower  price  than  this,  purchased  a  small 
quantity  for  each  company.  The  duty  was  then, 
as  now,  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  forty- five  per 
cent.,  which  at  that  price  was  equivalent  to 
about  three  cents  per  pound.  Gold  was  then 
above  200,  and  each  ton  of  rails  had  cost  when 
on  the  wharf  in  Philadelphia  $390,  currency. 
Our  country  abounds  in  the  materials  from 
which  to  make  not  only  Bessemer  rails,  but 
every  quality  of  steel,  and  the  wages  paid  to 
American  workmen  are  high  enough  to  tempt 
skilled  workmen  from  England  and  Germany. 

In  view  of  these  facts  several  enterprising 
railroad  men  determined  to  establish  Bessemer 
rail  works.  This  was  not  to  be  done  in  a  day. 
It  required  the  selection  of  a  judicious  site,  the 
erection  of  extensive  buildings,  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  a  large  amount  of  machinery,  which  con¬ 
sumed  considerably  more  than  a  year.  During 
all  this  time  the  price  of  English  rails  remained 
at  $150  cash,  gold,  per  ton  delivered  on  the 
wharf  in  America.  But  at  length  the  Freedom 
Works,  at  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  so  called 
in  commemoration  of  our  partial  enfranchise¬ 
ment  from  the  grasp  of  foreign  monopolists, 
were  ready  to  take  orders,  and  another  estab¬ 
lishment  for  their  production  was  erecting  at 
Troy,  New  York,  when  lo  !  the  same  English 
manufacturers,  who  had  been  unable  to  sell  at 
less  than  $150  per  ton,  canvassed  our  market 
to  firfd  buyers  at  $130.  What  wrought  this 
great  change  ?  Had  the  Commissioner’ s  English 
friends  been  making  profits  off- our  railroad 
companies  greater  than  he  ascribes  to  our 
producers  of  salt,  pig-iron,  lumber,  and  other 
things  essential  to  national  independence ;  or 
were  they  willing  to  sacrifice  the  profit  on  a 
small  part  of  their  annual  product  in  order  to 


6 


/ 


crush  an  infant  rival  whose  development  they 
feared?  Be  this  as  it  may,  in  less  than  four 
years  competition  has  brought  the  price  of  Bes¬ 
semer  rails  down  so  rapidly  that  orders  are  now 
taken  in  England  at  eleven  pounds  sterling,  or 
about  fifty-five  dollars,  deliverable  at  Liverpool 
or  Hull.  Meanwhile  the  mills  ‘for  their  pro¬ 
duction  at  Troy,  New  York,  and  others  at 
Chester,  Pennsylvania,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  and 
Detroit,  Michigan,  have  been  completed  ;  and 
the  plans  have  been  adopted  for  others  at  Mott 
Haven,  New  York;  Pittsburg,  Johnstown,  and 
Bethlehem,  Pennsylvania;  Baltimore,  Cincin¬ 
nati,  and  St.  Louis ;  but  their  construction 
awaits  and  is  dependent  on  the  action  of  Con¬ 
gress  on  the  tariff.  These  facts  are  known  to 
Mr.  Wells,  yet  he  endeavors  to  persuade  the 
country  that  a  protective  duty  is  always  a  tax 
on  the  consumer,  and  labors  to  induce  Con¬ 
gress  to  reduce  a  duty  which  was  at  the  rate  of 
three  cents  to  one  and  a  half  c.ent  per  pound ;  a 
change  which  he  well  knows  would  close  all  our 
Bessemer  rail  works  and  restore  to  his  English 
friends  the  monopoly  of  our  market.  What 
can  have  brought  him  to  such  a  conclusion? 
What  is  to  be  his  reward  for  such  a  consumma¬ 
tion? 

If  gentlemen  will  turn  to  page  125  of  the 
report  they  will  find  a  schedule  presenting  a 
classification  of  steel,  and  proposed  rates  of 
duty  on  each  class.  It  purports  to  be  Mr.  Wells’s 
own  suggestion,  and  is  submitted  with  all  the 
emphasis  that  the  abundant  resort  to  italics 
can  give.  I  hope  gentlemen  will  examine  it,  for 
I  think  that  with  its  private  history  it  furnishes 
a  clew  to  his  change  of  views  on  the  question 
as  to  whether  a  protective  duty  that  develops 
a  great  industry  is  a  tax,  and  his  Saul -like  con¬ 
version  on  the  steel  question.  For  nearly  a  quar¬ 
ter  of  a  century  our  duties  on  cast-steel  have  been 
assessed  upon  the  value  of  the  commodity,  or  ad 
valorem ;  and  recent  investigations  by  an  agent 
of  the  Government  has  shown  that  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  period  the  steel-makers  of 
Sheffield,  by  refusing  to  sell  directly  to  Ameri¬ 
can  purchasers  and  consigning  their  goods  to 
their  agents  in  this  country  for  sale,  by  which 
cunning  arrangement  they  could  successfully 
practice  a  system  of  undervaluation,  have  been 
defrauding  the  Government  of  a  large  portion 
of  its  dues. 

The  Sheffield  steel-makers  are  men  of  wealth 
and  social  position,  and  this  discovery  of  their 
long-continued  and  systematic  fraud  upon  our 
Government  has  not  been  a  pleasant  thing  for 
them.  The  charge  is  distasteful  to  them.  A 
combination  to  cheat  and  defraud  has  an  ugly 
sound.  They  squirm  under  it  and  admit  that 
steel  has  been  invoiced  to  the  United  States  at 
lower  rates  than  those  at  which  they  sell  in 
England  or  to  the  people  of  the  Continent,  but 
assert  that,  low  as  the  invoice  prices  are,  they 
are  the  prices  at  which  they  sell  in  this  country. 
Good,  kind-hearted,  benevolent  people!  How 
they  do  love  the  Yankees !  To  be  willing  to 
sell  them  their  wares  cheaper  than  they  will  to 
their  own  countrymen  or  to  any  of  the  people 
of  Europe !  Have  they  any  reason  for  doing  so, 
or  do  they  pretend  to  have  any  ?  Yes  ;  they  are 


not  without  a  show  of  reason.  They  say — and 
their  letters  are  oq  file  in  the  Treasury  Depart¬ 
ment,  and  their  agent3  have  appeared  there 
to  enforce  the  statement — that  our  market  is 
essential  to  the  maintenance  of  their  works, 
and  that  such  is  the  competition  they  encoun¬ 
ter  from  our  steel- makers  that  they  are  forced 
to  sell  to  us  at  lower  rates  than  they  do  to  the 
English  or  any  other  people.  In  a  letter  to  our 
consul  at  that  city,  dated  July  10, 1869, Thomas 
Firth  &  Son,  of  Sheffield,  say: 

“We  have  a  very  large  steel  trade  in  America, 
amounting  to  a  large  proportion  of  our  whole  busi¬ 
ness,  and  in  that  market  there  is  from  various  circum¬ 
stances  much  competition ;  and  these  two  causes — 
large  trade  and  competition  combined — have  induced 
us  to  be  satisfied  with  a  smaller  average  profit  there 
than  we  have  realized  on  the  average  in  our  other 
markets.” 

Mr.  Wells  has  seen  the  report  of  Mr.  Far- 
well,  the  Treasury  agent  referred  to,  and  has 
examined,  or  ought  to  have  examined,  all  the 
papers  in  this  controversy,  and  might  have 
cited  them  as  proof  of  his  assertion  that  the 
reduction  in  the  price  of  steel  has  more  than 
compensated  the  American  people  for  all  the 
duty  paid  on  that  article  since  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  our  first  successful  steel  wrorks  in  1859. 
But  I  have  been  led  into  a  digression. 

I  had  said  that  the  discovery  of  their  sys¬ 
tematic  frauds  was  not  a  pleasant  thing  to  the 
English  steel- makers,  and  was  proceeding  to 
say  that  foreseeing  it  would  probably  lead  to 
the  abandonment  of  ad  valorem  and  the  levy¬ 
ing  of  specific  duties  on  steel  they  have  over¬ 
whelmed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and 
other  official  personages  with  unsolicited,  and, 
of  course,  disinterested  advice.  That  we  should 
not  suffer  for  want  of  their  experience,  the  draft 
of  a  bill  providing  a  scale  of  duties  on  steel  was 
prepared,  as  I  am  informed  and  verily  believe,  by 
or  in  consultation  with  a  member  of  one  of  the 
leading  firms  of  steel-makers  of  Sheffield,  and 
sent  over  to  a  gentleman  specially  connected 
with  legislation  on  financial  subjects.  I  have 
examined  the  original  draft  as  it  came  from 
Sheffield,  and  have  a  copy  of  it  before  me. 
It  is  a  proposition  by  the  vulture  to  protect 
the  dove.  It  is  plausible  in  its  minute  classi¬ 
fication.  It  would,  had  it  been  honestly 
named,  have  been  entitled  a  bill  to  prohibit  the 
manufacture  of  steel  in  the  United  States. 
It  is,  however,  entitled  “  A  bill  to  amend  an 
act  entitled  ‘  An  act  to  increase  duties  on  im¬ 
ports,  and  for  otherpurposes,’  ”  approved  June 
80,1864.”  Itfurnished  Mr.Wells  his  schedule; 
and  that  gentlemen  may  see  how  completely 
he  has  adopted  it,  how  entirely  his  views  on 
this  important  subject  are  in  accord  with  those 
of  the  steel  monopolists  of  England,  whose 
interest  it  is  to  hold  us  in  commercial  and 
maritime  dependence,  I  will  ask  the  reporters 
to  put  the  two  schedules  in  parallel  columns. 
It  is>  perhaps,  due  to  Mr.  Wells,  in  this  con¬ 
nection,  that  I  should  mention  the  fact  that  he 
so  far  exercised  his  own  judgment  in  making 
this  recommendation  as  to  modify  two  or  three 
unimportant  rates  and  to  change  the  order  from 
that  in  which  the  items  stand  in  the  bill ;  and 
that  to  make  the  comparison  easy  for  the  read- 


7 


ers  of  the  Globe,  I  have  arranged  them  in  the 
order  chosen  by  Mr.  Wells  : 

Wells’ 8  schedule.  Sheffield  bill. 

On  scrap  steel,  £  cent  On  scrap  steel,  £  cent 
per  pound.  per  pound. 

On  blister  steel  in  bars  On  blister  steel  in  bars 
broken  up  for  melting,  1£  broken  up  for  melting,  1£ 
cents  per  pound.  cents  per  pound. 

On  German  steel  in  On  German  steel  in 
bars,  2  cents  per  pound.  bars,  2  cents  per  pound. 

On  shear  steel  in  bars,  On  shear  steel  in  bars, 
2h  cents  per  pound.  2}  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  ingots  and  On  cast-steel  ingots,  1 
on  all  rough  and  unfin-  cent  per  pound, 
ished  castings  in  steel,  1 
cent  per  pound. 

On  castings  in  steel.  On  castings  in  steel  with 
drilled,  bored,  or  ham-  holes  drilled  or  bored, 
mered  cold,  1£  cents  per  hammered  or  turned  or 
pound.  planed  in  parts,  but  in  no 

case  hammered  or  roorked 
hot,  1£  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  in  bars,  2s  On  cast-steel  in  bars,  2£ 
cents  per  pound.  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast  or  German  steel  On  castor  German  steel 

in  plates  to  16  wire  gauge,  in  sheets  or  plates  to  No. 
inclusive,  2  cents  per  23  wire  gauge,  2s  cents 
pound;  from  17  to  24,  2£  per  pound, 
cents  per  pound;  above 
24,  3  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast  or  German  steel  On  cast  or  German  steel 
in  form  of  wire  and  sheets  in  form  of  wire  or  strips 
which  aredrawn  orrolled  which  are  drawn  or  rolled 
cold  to  16  wire  gauge,  3  cold  to  16  wire  gauge,  3 
cents  per  pound.  cents  per  pound. 

Thinner  than  16  wire  When  drawn  or  rolled 
gauge,  3?  cents  per  pound,  smaller  than  16  wire 

gauge, 31  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  tires  for  On  cast-steel  tires  for 
rolling-stock  for  rail-  rolling-stock  for  rail¬ 
roads,  2  cents  per  pound,  roads,  2  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  straight  On  cast-steel  straight- 
axles,  shafts,  piston-rods,  axles,  piston,  connect- 
and  general  forgings  to  ing  and  coupling  -  rods, 
pattern,  1  cent  per  pound,  crank  -  pins,  slicle-bars, 

and  general  forgings  to 
pattern  only,  1£  cents  per 
pound. 

Do.  do.  rough-turned,  If  forged  to  shape  and 
1£  cents  per  pound.  rough-turned  or  planed, 

1?  cents  per  pound. 

Do.  do.  finished  ready  If  finished  ready  for 
for  use,  2 cents  per  pound,  use,  2  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  crank  On  cast-steel  crank- 
axles  forged  to  shape,  shafts,  if  forged  to  shape 
only  1£  cents  per  pound,  only,  1£  cents  per  pound. 

On  cast -steel  crank  On  cast -steel  crank 
axles,  forged  to  shape,  shafts,  if  forged  to  shape, 
rough  -  turned,  planed,  rough  -  turned,  planed, 
and  slotted,  1J-  cents  per  and  slotted,  1£  cents  per 
pound.  pound. 

Do.  do.  finished  ready  On  cast -steel  crank 
for  use,  2  cents  per  pound,  shafts,  if  forged  to  shape, 

finished  ready  for  use,  2s 
cents  per  pound. 

On  cast-steel  rails,  1£  On  cast-steel  rails,  1 
cents  per  pound.  4  cent  per  pound. 

On  steel  not  otherwise  On  steel  or  manufac- 
provided  for,  2  cents  per  tures  of  steel,  not  other- 
pound.  wise  provided  for,  21  cents 

per  pound. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  foregoing  sched¬ 
ules  are,  as  I  intimated,  not  absolutely  iden¬ 
tical,  but  they  are  so  nearly  so  as  to  prevent 
Mr.  Wells  from  denying  that  they  sprang  from 
the  same  brain  and  pleading  the  possibility  of 
coincidence — I  do  not  say' the  probability,  but 
the  possibility  of  coincidence — on  so  many 
points  of  rate  and  general  and  technical 
phraseology.  And  it  will  be  further  noticed 
that  where  the  slightest  departure  in  rate  occurs 
in  any  one  item,  as  is  the  case  in  two  or  three 
unimportant  instances,  it  is  immediately  com¬ 
pensated  for  in  the  next  item  by  a  correspond¬ 
ing  change  the  other  way.  Thus,  Mr.  Wells  is 


more  generous  to  his  countrymen  in  the  matter 
of  Bessemer  rails  than  their  Sheffield  rival 
would  be.  He  proposes  to  kill  them  instantly 
by  putting  the  rate  at  one  cent  a  pound  ;  while 
Mr.  Wells  is  willing  to  give  them  breathing  time 
in  which  to  put  their  houses  in  order  by  letting 
them  die  slowly  at  one  and  a  half  cent.  And 
in  the  next  item  the  Englishman  proves  the 
more  generous  ;  for  he  proposes  two  and  a  half 
cents  on  all  steel  and  manufactures  of  steel  not 
provided  for,  and  Mr.  Wells  would  crush  his 
countrymen  instantly  by  making  the  duty  on 
those  articles  but  two  cents. 

I  cannot  leave  this  branch  of  the  subject 
without  saying  that  I  believe  gentlemen  gen¬ 
erally  who  compare  these  schedules  will  agree 
with  me  in  thinking  that  Mr.  Wells’s  Sheffield 
employers  have  treated  him  badly,  scurvily. 
Having  induced  him  to  father  their  project,  so 
prejudicial  to  his  country  and  so  destructive  to 
the  business  of  many  of  his  countrymen,  they 
violated  faith  with  him  when  they  made  their 
paternity  of  the  scheme  known  by  sending  a 
copy  of  the  bill  to  official  quarters  in  this  coun¬ 
try  in  advance  of  the  publication  of  his  report. 

.  PIG-IRON. 

With  all  the  zeal  of  a  new  convert  or  coun¬ 
sel  laboring  to  secure  a  contingent  fee,  Mr. 
Wells  applies  his  assumption  that  a  protective 
duty  is  necessarily  a  tax  on  the  consumer  to 
pig-iron,  and  by  the  plausibility  of  his  argu¬ 
ment  would  make  innocent  and  inexperienced 
people  believe  that  he  really  hoped  to  secure 
cheap  pig-iron  by  reducing  the  duty  on  that 
article  from  nine  dollars  a  ton  to  three  dollars. 
Could  he  close  our  steel  works,  as  the  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  Sheffield  schedule  recommended  by 
him  would  do  in  three  months,  and  arrest  the 
progress  we  are  making  in  the  increased  pro¬ 
duction  of  pig-iron,  he  would  do  more  to  retard 
the  progress  of  his  country  toward  commercial 
prosperity  and  national  supremacy  than  Davis, 
Lee,  and  all  the  heads  of  the  rebellion  accom¬ 
plished.  I  cannot  conceive  the  single  cause 
that  would  do  more  to  depress  and  impoverish 
our  people  and  retard  the  growth  of  our  coun¬ 
try  than  the  sudden  prostration  of  these  great 
interests  at  a  time  when  the  English  or  con¬ 
tinental  manufacturer  will  purchase  none  of 
our  grain  for  which  he  has  to  pay  a  penny  in 
advance  of  the  price  for  which  he  can  buy 
from  the  peasants  of  Austria  and  Russia. 

But  this  recommendation  with  reference  to 
pig-iron  is  consistent  with  the  rest  of  the  report, 
throughout  which  the  desire  is  manifest  to  make 
the  United  States  as  commercially  dependent 
on  and  tributary  to  England  as  though  they 
were  still  part  of  her  North  American  colonies. 
He  cites  pig-iron,  coal,  salt,  and  lumber  as 
illustrations  of  a  class  of  cases  where  excessive 
and  unnecessary  duties  have  been  imposed  and 
maintained  11  with  a  view  of  enhancing  the  cost 
of  articles  indispensable  to  many  other  branches 
of  production”  and  elsewhere  says  that  the 
only  reply  offered  to  his  assaults  upon  this  great 
and  essential  interest  u  is  that  a  continuance 
of  the  present  duty  on  pig-iron  is  necessary  to 
insure  employment  to  American  labor.” 

I  pause  to  notice  his  assertion,  that  Con- 


8 


gress  in  the  midst  of  a  great  war  imposed  un¬ 
necessary  exactions  in  order  to  increase  the 
cost  of  an  article  so  essential  as  iron  to  the 
life  of  the  nation,  simply  to  remark  that  such 
an  intimation  is  worthy  the  man  who  can  sap 
and  mine  the  great  interests  of  his  country  as 
Commissioner  Wells  is  doing.  The  present 
duty  on  pig-iron  was  imposed  for  two  pur¬ 
poses,  both  of  which  were  patriotic.  The  first 
was  to  raise  additional  revenue,  and  the  other 
to  stimulate  the  conversion  of  ore,  coal,  and 
limestone,  of  which  in  almost  every  part  of  the 
country  we  have  inexhaustible  supplies,  into  a 
material  the  increased  production  of  which 
was  a  prerequisite  to  the  general  extension  of 
our  industries  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
dignity  and  rights  of  the  nation,  which  were 
then  being  violated  by  the  armed  cruisers  of 
the  country  to  which  we  looked  for  a  supply 
of  png-iron  and  Bessemer  rails.  And,  sir,  I 
am  happy  in  being  able  to  show  that  it  has 
accomplished  both  these  objects,  and  that  if 
permitted  to  stand  for  five  years  it  will,  while 
contributinglargely  to  thereduction  of  our  debt, 
insure  us  not  only  a  home  supply  of  pig-iron, 
but  such  ample  means  of  producing  it  as  will 
enable  us  to  enter  the  markets  of  the  world  in 
competition  with  England. 

What  has  it  done  as  a  revenue  measure? 
During  the  year  that  ended  on  the  30th  of-June, 
1868,  we  derived  from  this  duty  $1,011,109  96  ; 
in  the  succeding  year,  closing  on  the  30th  of 
June,  1869,  $1,199,762  55;  and  in  the  current 
fiscal  year  will  give  us  a  still  larger  income,  with¬ 
out  in  the  slightest  degree  impairing  the  revenue 
derived  from  our  consumption  of  foreign  iron  in 
more  advanced  condition.  This  is  shown  by 
the  following  statement  of  the  quantities  of  the 
various  kinds  of  iron  and  steel  exported  from 
Great  Britain  to  the  United  States  during  the 
ten  months  ending  October  31,  of  the  years 
1868-69,  in  tons  of  2,000  pounds : 

1868.  1869. 

Iron,  pig  and  puddled .  84,564  132,491 

Iron,  bar,  angle,  bolt,  and  rod .  38,200  51,738 

Iron,  railroad,  of  all  sorts . 255,462  294,368 

Iron  castings .  1,213  1,677 

Iron  hoops,  sheets,  andboiler  plates,  15,999  31,292 

Iron,  wrought,  of  all  sorts .  4,020  7,364 

Total . 399, 45S  518,930 

Steel,  unwrought .  14,847  15,612 


Has  not  the  duty  of  nine  dollars  per  ton  on 
pig-iron  been  eminently  successful  as  a  revenue 
measure  ?  I  think  it  has ;  but  its  most  abundant 
success  has  been  in  its  power  to  increase  the 
supply,  improve  the  quality,  and  lessen  the 
cost  of  domestic  pig-iron.  The  Commissioner 
raises  no  question  as  to  the  relative  quality  of 
British  and  American  iron,  and  does  not,  as  I 
remember,  state  the  quantity  of  our  annual 
production,  except  that  in  one  of  his  hypo¬ 
thetical  calculations  of  the  values  realized  from 
different  departments  of  industry,  to  state 
which  he  was  required  to  assume  some  quan¬ 
tity,  he  places  the  annual  product  for  1869  at 
1,725, 000 tons,  or  just  about  175,000tonsbelow 
the  ascertained  production  of  that  year.  That 
the  average  quality  of  American  pig,  bar,  and 


railroad  iron  is  superior  to  the  average  of  the 
same  descriptions  of  English  iron  is  an  almost 
universally-conceded  fact ;  but  to  blazon  this 
to  the  world  would  not  serve  the  interest  of  the 
Commissioner’s  British  friends,  and  he  is  there¬ 
fore  silent  upon  this  aspect  of  the  question  also. 
He  tells  us  with  much  elaboration  what  he  has 
been  told  has  been  the  cost  of  production  per 
ton  at  several  points  in  this  country,*  and  the 
mhrket  price  per  ton  during  the  year  in  Eng¬ 
land  and  here. 

But  though  his  report  abounds  in  hypotheses 
and  calculations  based  on  estimates  and  sup¬ 
positions,  he  nowhere  tells  or  attempts  to  tell 
us  what  we  would  have  been  made  to  pay  the 
British  iron  master  for  his  inferior  pig,  bar, 
sheet,  and  rails  if  the  American  production  of 
pig-iron  had  not  been  more  than  doubled  since 
the  establishment  of  this  duty,  and  if  the  man-  , 
ufacture  of  cast-steel  and  Bessemer  rails  had 
not  also  been  established  at  so  many  points 
within  our  limits.  He  is  not  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  in  little  more  than  a  year  past  sixty- 
five  new  blast  furnaces  have  been  erected, 
and  that  they  are  to  employ  a  portion  of  the 
people  of  fifteen  States.  Six  of  them  are  in 
New  York,  one  in  New  Jersey,  nineteen  in 
Pennsylvania,  one  in  Maryland,  four  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  six  in  Ohio,  five  in  Indiana,  three  in 
Illinois,  five  in  Michigan,  two  in  Wisconsin, 
six  in  Missouri,  three  in  Kentucky,  one  in 
Georgia,  two  in  Alabama,  and  one  in  Ten¬ 
nessee.  These  furnaces  have  increased  our 
productive  power  to  nearly  two  million  five 
hundred  thousand  tons  per  annum.  Arrange¬ 
ments  are  also  making  for  the  erection  of  more 


fThis  portion  of  the  Commissioner’s  report  has 
elicited  the  following  memorial : 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 

of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled : 

In  the  late  report  of  lion.  David  A.  Wells,  Special 
Commissioner  of  the  Revenue,  the  following  para¬ 
graph  appears : 

“  In  the  valley  of  the  Cumberland  and  in  the  an¬ 
thracite  district  of  Pennsylvania,  and  at  Scranton, 
the  Commissioner  is  informed  by  those  conversant 
with  the  business  that  the  average  cost  of  manufac¬ 
ture  in  the  case  of  furnaces  favorably  situated,  under 
good  management  and  with  coal  at  ordinary  prices, 
is  not  in  excess  of  from  twenty-four  to  twenty-six 
dollars  per  ton,  and  in  some  instances  is  much  less 
than  this  figure.  These  estimates,  furthermore,  it 
should  be  observed,  include  a  liberal  interest  on  the 
capital  invested,  Avhich  is  turned  on  an  average  from 
two  to  three  times  per  annum.” 

Your  memorialists,  representing  thirty-seven  fur¬ 
naces  in  the  Lehigh,  Schuylkill,  and  Susquehanna 
regions,  producing  annually  in  the  aggregate  over 
270,000  tons  of  pig-iron,  respectfully  express  their  be¬ 
lief,  based  upon  personal  knowledge,  that  the  above 
statement  of  the  Commissioner  will  be  found  upon  a 
critical  examination  erroneous,  and  if  accepted  by 
Congress  a  most  dangerousguide  to  legislation.  Upon 
the  authority  of  ourpcrsonal  knowledge  we  beg  leave 
to  state  that  the  average  cost  per  ton  at  the  furnaces 
we  represent,  exclusive  of  any  interest  on  capital 
and  the  expenses  of  moving  product  from  the  fur¬ 
naces,  in  theyear  1868  was  $29  16f,  and  in  the  first  six 
months  of  1869,  $29  63;  while  we  believe  the  cost  for 
the  last  six  months  will  not  materially  vary  there¬ 
from,  these  prices  being  the  average  cost  of  the 
product,  embracing  the'  three  qualities  of  iron, 
namely,  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3. 

We  respectfully  express  the  conviction  that  the 
foregoing  average  cost  of  the  product  of  the  furnaces 
we  represent  is  below  the  average  cost  of  the  product 
of  American  furnaces  collectively ;  it  being  our  belief 


9 


than  fifty  other  furnaces  during  the  year  upon 
which  we  have  just  entered,  many  of  which 
have  been  commenced.  The  estimated  prod¬ 
uct  of  pig-iron  for  this  year  is  two  million  two 
hundred  and  twenty-five  thousand  tons,  or  about 
fifty  per  cent,  of  the  annual  average  produc¬ 
tion  of  Great  Britain. 

These  facts  are,  I  repeat,  known  to  the  Com¬ 
missioner;  and  he  knows  also  that  by  a  law  as 
inevitable  as  that  of  gravitation  domestic  com¬ 
petition  increasing  in  such  a  ratio  must  at  an 
early  day  bring  down  the  price  of  iron  as  it  has 
that  of  wheat  and  flour,  and  of  knit  and  other 
cotton  and  woolen  goods,  to  a  point  beyond 
danger  from  foreign  competition  ;  and  by  thus 
relieving  us  from  dependence  on  England  for 
the  first  essential  in  a  great  war,  will  aiso  make 
us  her  competitor  in  the  markets  of  the  world 
in  a  field  her  supremacy  in  which  has  hitherto 
made  her  the  commercial  mistress  of  the  world. 

I  will  not  offer  an  estimate  of  what  would 
have  been  the  price  of  pig-iron  had  not  the 
necessities  of  the  Government  compelled  it  to 
impose  a  duty  that  was  protective  and  which 
justified  men  of  enterprise  in  opening  coal 
mines  and  ore-beds  and  erecting  furnaces  ;  but 
to  enable  gentlemen  to  judge  for  themselves,  I 
submit  the  following.  On  page  85  of  the  report 
I  am  considering  the  Commissioner  says  : 

“How  great  the  demand  of  the  future  ia  likely  to 
prove  may  bo  inferred  from  the  circumstance  that 
while  the  per  capita  consumption  of  Great  Britain 
and  Belgium,  after  allowing  for  exportation,  has 
reached  one  hundred  and  eighty-nine  pounds  per 
annum,  the  present  annual  consumption  of  the  Uni- 


that  we  represent  interests  having  important  eco¬ 
nomic  advantages. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  statements  we  respect¬ 
fully  ask  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  Commissioner,  to 
the  producer  of  American  pig  iron,  to  the  public  and 
to  its  Representatives  in  Congress,  that  you  will  make 
a  special  and  searching  inquiry  for  the  data  on  which 
the  Commissioner  has  based  his  statements,  and  into 
the  accuracy  of  our  statements  as  above,  that  the 
truth  may  be  made  public  and  error,  however  strongly 
indorsed,  be  effectually  confuted. 

LEHIGH  CRANE  IRON  COMPANY, 

Catasauqua,  Leliigh  county ,  Pennsylvania. 

ALLENTOWN  IRON  COMPANY, 

Allentown,  Lehigh  county,  Pennsylvania. 

SAUCON  IRON  COMPANY, 

Hellertown,  Lehiali  county,  Pennsylvania. 

ANDOVER  IRON  COMPANY, 

Phillipsburg ,  New  Jersey. 

MONTGOMERY  IRON  COMPANY, 

Montgomery  county,  Pennsylvania. 

J.  B.  MOORHEAD  &  CO., 

Montgomery  county,  Pennsylvania. 

ROBERTS  IRON  COMPANY, 

Allentown,  Lehigh  county,  Pennsylvania. 

REPPLIER,  LANIGAN  &  CO., 

Montgomery  county,  Pennsylv  ania. 

CHESTNUT  HILL  IRON  ORE  COMPANY, 
Columbia,  Jjancaster  county,  Pennsylvania. 

E.  IIALDEMAN  &  CO.,  Chickies  Station, 

Lancaster  county,  Pennsylvania. 

C.  B.  GRUBB  &  SON, 

Columbia,  Lancaster  county,  Pennsylvania. 

C.  S.  KAUFFMAN, 

Columbia,  Lancaster  county,  Pennsylvania. 

ATKINS  BROTHERS, 

Pottsville,  Montgomery  county,  Pennsylvania. 

CARBON  IRON  COMPANY, 

Parryville,  Carbon  county,  Pennsylvania. 

HENRY  S.  ECKERT,  Reading,  Pennsylvania. 

G.  DAWSON  COLEMAN. 

Lebanon,  Pennsylvania. 


ted  States  is  not  in  excess  of  one  hundred  pounds 
per  capita.  No  nation,  furthermore,  at  the  present 
time,  with  the  exception  of  Great  Britain,  is  pro¬ 
ducing  pig-iron  in  sufficient  excess  of  its  needs  to 
allow  of  a  surplus  for  exportation ;  and  in  Great 
Britain  the  prospect  of  any  future  increase  is  entirely 
dependent upon  the  uncertain  condition  of  her  being 
able  to  supply  coal  on  a  scale  of  consumption  that  is 
already  in  excess  of  one  hundred  and  four  million 
tons  per  annum.” 

On  page  3  of  his  report  made  January,  1809, 
Mr.  Wells  tells  us  that — 

“In  France  the  annual  product  of  pig-iron  was  in 
1866  1,253,100  tons,  and  in  18671,112,800  tons,  showing 
a  decline  of  110,300  tons. 

“In  Austria  the  official  returns  of  the  iron  trade 
show  a  diminution  of  forty-two  per  cent,  in  1866  as 
compared  with  1860,  and  of  sixty  per  cent,  as  com¬ 
pared  with  1862.” 

And  in  that  valuable  paper,  the  report  of 
A.  S.  Hewett,  esq.,  United  States  commis¬ 
sioner  to  the  Paris  Exposition,  we  learn  that 
ours  is  almost  the  only  country  in  the  world 
that  can  largely  expand  its  production  of  iron. 
Mr.  Hewett  agrees  with  Mr.  Wells  that  it  is 
problematical  as  to  whether  England  can  for 
the  present  increase  her  production  mate¬ 
rially.  He  thinks  she  may  maintain  her  present 
position  among  other  continental  producers ; 
but  beyond  this  he  does  not  think  she  can  go, 
by  reason  of  the  depth  of  her  mines  and  the 
“intrinsic  difficulties  of  producing  the  re¬ 
quired  supply  of  materials  and  labor,  without 
an  enormous  increase  of  cost.” 

The  iron  production  of  the  world  for  1866, 
as  stated  by  Mr.  Hewett,  was  as  follows: 


. .  . . *  n 

Countries. 

Pig-iron. 

Wrought 

iron. 

t 

Tons. 

Tons. 

England . 

4,530,051 

3,500,000 

France . 

1,200,320 

844,734 

Belgium . 

500,000 

400,000 

Prussia . 

800,000 

400,000 

Austria . 

312,000 

200,000 

Sweden . 

226,676 

148,292 

Russia . 

408,000 

350,000 

Spain . . 

75,000 

50,000 

Italy  . 

30,000 

20,000 

Switzerland . 

15,000 

10,000 

Zollverein . 

250,000 

200,000 

United  States . 

1,175,900 

882,000 

Total . 

9,322,047 

7,205,026 

Thus  it  appears  that  with  a  production  of  less 
than  ten  million  tons  for  the  world’s  supply  no 
o<ther  country  than  ours  is  in  a  position  to  make 
a  large  and  immediate  addition  to  its  annual 
production.  The  difficulties  in  the  way  may 
be  briefly  stated  thus :  Sweden  possesses  ex¬ 
haustless  supplies  of  the  richest  primitive  ores, 
but  she  has  no  coal,  and  her  annual  production 
of  charcoal-iron  is  believed  to  have  reached  its 
limit.  Her  function  will  henceforth  be  to  mine 
and  export  ore.  Russia  has  ample  supplies  of 
ore,  but  so  far  as  exploration  has  yet  discov¬ 
ered  is  deficient  in  coal.  She  can,  however,  for 
some  time  somewhat  augment  her  production 
of  charcoal-iron.  Austria,  Italy,  Spain,  and  the 
States  of  the  Zollverein  have  ore,  but  little  or 
no  coal  available  for  iron-making,  and  are 
unable  to  extend,  if  they  can  maintain,  their 
press'**  production  of  charcoal-iron.  Franco 


10 


lias  neither  coal  nor  ore  sufficient  to  supply  her 
wants.  England  furnishes  her  with  one  third 
the  coal  sho  now  consumes  in  the  manufacture 
of  iron.  Little  Belgium  has  both  coal  and  ore, 
and  they  are  advantageously  situated,  butMhe 
field  is  so  contracted  that  she  cannot  increase 
her  production  beyond  her  own  wants,  and 
Prussia  is  a  large  importer  of  coal  and  pig-iron 
from  England.  So  much  for  prospective  in¬ 
crease  of  supplies;  while,  as  illustrative  of  the 
growing  demand,  I  need  only  allude  to  the 
gigantic  systems  of  railroads  buildingin  Russia 
and  India,  the  latter  at  immense  cost  by  Eng¬ 
land,  in  the  hope  of  impairing  our  supremacy 
as  producers  of  cotton. 

Had  we  continued  to  rely  upon  England  for 
pig-iron  in  excess  of  our  capacity  to  produce 
it  at  the  time  of  fixing  nine  dollars  as  the  duty, 
and  also  to  draw  our  supplies  of  cast-steel  and 
Bessemer  rails  from  her,  the  extension  of  our 
railroad  system  must  have  been  checked  and 
the  per  capita  consumption  of  iron  in  this  coun¬ 
try  been  much  restricted.  For  nine  years 
before  the  imposition  of  that  duty  our  annual 
production  had  been  less  than  800,000  tons, 
and  that  of  England  had  not  increased  at  the 
rate  of  100,000  tons  per  annum.  Our  demand 
increases  at  the  rate  of  from  170,000  to  200,000 
tons  per  annum.  Whence  but  from  our  own 
ore  beds  and  coal  mines  could  the  supply  have 
been  drawn?  The  production  of  pig-iron  in 
England  and  the  United  States  from  1854  to 
1862  inclusive  was  as  follows  : 

United 

England.  States. 


1854  . 3,069,838  716,674 

1855  . 3,218,154  754.178 

1856  . 3,586,377  874,428 

1857  . 3,659,447  .  7i3,157 

1858  . 3,456,064  705,094 

1859  . 3,712,904  840,427 

1860  . 3,826,752  913,774 

1861  . 3,712,390  731,564 

1862  . 3,943,469  787,662 


These  figures  show  that  the  two  great  iron- 
producing  countries  of  the  world,  England 
and  the  United  States,  increased  their  joint 
production  less  than  one  hundred  thousand 
tons  per  annum  for  nine  consecutive  years, 
while  we  alone  demand  an  increase  of  at  least 
one  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  tons,  and 
prove  the  assertion  that  but  for  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  an  incentive  to  the  production  of  iron 
in  this  country  the  expansion  of  our  railroad 
system  and  our  general  material  progress 
must  have  been  impossible.  Was  there  any 
charm  by  which  an  increased  supply  could  be 
evoked?  Was  there  any  means  by  which  the 
disparity  between  the  wages  of  English  labor¬ 
ers  in  iron-works  and  such  as  were  essential  to 
the  support  of  American  citizens  who  might 
engage  in  similar  employments  could  be  coun¬ 
terbalanced  ?  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  was 
one,  and  that  was  applied.  It  was  such  a  duty 
as  would  give  capitalists  and  men  of  enterprise 
a  guarantee  that  if  they  paid  workmen  fair 
American  wages  for  building  furnaces,  digging 
and  hauling  coal,  ore,  and  limestone,  and  con¬ 
verting  them  into  pig-iron  they  should  not  be 
undersold  in  our  own  markets  by  the  produc¬ 
tions  of  underpaid  British  workmen.  Nine  dol¬ 


lars  per  ton  it  was  believed  would  give  them 
that  guarantee,  and  yet  leave  our  markets  so 
largely  open  to  English  competition  that  we 
should  derive  more  duty  from  pig-iron  than  we 
had  done  under  lower  duties. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  difference  between  the 
wages  of  English  and  American  workmen.  Let 
me  show  how  great  it  is.  The  English  shilling 
is  twenty-five  cents  of  our  money.  Commercial 
men  know  this ;  there  are,  however,  many  of 
our  people  not  familiar  with  the  details  of  com¬ 
merce  and  the  exchangeable  value  of  money  to 
whom  it  may  be  proper  to  state  the  fact.  Turn¬ 
ing  again  to  the  report  of  Mr.  Hewett,  which  I 
recur  to  frequently  and  always  with  a  renewed 
sense  of  obligation,  I  find  the  rates  of  wages 
paid  in  England  in  I860  to  have  been  as  follows : 

Wages  paid  in  South  Staffordshire,  England  in  1866. 


Per  day. 


Common  laborers . 

.  2s. 

6d.  to  3s. 

0  d, 

Puddlers . 

Puddlers’  helpers . 

.  7 

6 

to  7 

10 

2 

6 

to  2 

11 

Puddle  rollers . 

.  9 

0 

- 

Heaters . 

.  7 

0 

- 

Ileater  helpers . . 

.  3 

6 

- 

Finishing  rollers . 

.  11 

0 

- 

Shinglers . 

.  9 

0 

to  15 

0 

Machinists . 

.  4 

0 

to  16 

0 

Blacksmiths . 

.  4 

0 

to  5 

0 

Masons . 

6 

to  8 

6 

The  average  price  of  skilled  and  unskilled  labor 
at  the  iron-works  in  England  does  not  exceed  is  a 
day. 

At  the  coal  and  iron  works  of  Creed  &  Williams,  in 
Belgium,  the  wages  paid  in  1866  were  as  follows : 

Per  day. 


Common  laborers . 

2d.  to 

3s. 

Qd. 

Loaders  of  coal . 

.  2 

6 

to 

2 

11 

Wood-cutters . 

o 

6 

to 

2 

11 

Wood  or  tree-setters . 

.  3 

1 

to 

5 

0 

Miners . 

2 

11 

to 

4 

o 

Exceptional  men .  5  0 

At  the  Blast  Furnaces. 

to 

6 

0 

Fillers . 

.  1 

1 

to 

9 

1 

Box  fillers . . . 

.  1 

4 

to 

1 

8 

Common  laborers . 

.  1 

5 

to 

1 

8 

Furnace-keepers .  2 

In  the  Bolling -Mill. 

1 

to 

2 

11 

Puddlers . 

.  4 

2 

to 

5 

0 

Helpers . . 

.  2 

3 

to 

3 

1 

Rollers . 

.  4 

2 

to 

5 

10 

Helpers . 

.  3 

4 

to 

4 

2 

Shearers . 

.  1 

10 

to 

2 

6 

Common  laborers . 

.  1 

5 

to 

2 

1 

In  all  other  European  countries  wages  are  lower 
than  in  England. 


These  figures  are  worthy  of  the  study  of  the 
workingmen  of  this  country,  whom  Mr.  Com¬ 
missioner  Wells  is  persistently  striving  to  array 
in  hostility  against  those  whose  interests,  for 
the  present  at  least,  are  identical  with  their 
own — the  men  who  have  embarked  their  capi¬ 
tal  in  an  attempt  to  make  the  United  States 
commercially  and  politically  independent  of 
Great  Britain,  and  who,  if  sustained  in  good 
faith,  will  not  only  accomplish  this,  but  enable 
us  to  meet  her  in  the  markets  of  the  world 
with  pig,  bar,  and  sheet-iron, with  steel  in  all  its 
forms,  including  cutlery,  and  with  iron  ships 
carrying  a  commerce  as  extended  as  her  own 
upon  every  sea. 

Having  shown  that  the  experiment  of  nine 
dollars  per  ton  has  been  successful  as  a  rev¬ 
enue  measure,  now  let  us  see  what  effect  it 
has  had  in  stimulating  production  without 


11 


diminishing  the  wages  of  labor.  When  it  was 
adopted  English  iron- masters  saw  that  with 
our  inexhaustible  fields  and  rich  varieties  of 
coal  and  ore  we  must  soon  become  competitors 
with  them  for  our  home  market,  and  at  no  dis¬ 
tant  day  a  formidable  rival  in  the  general  mar¬ 
kets  of  this  continent.  This  it  was  their  inter¬ 
est  to  prevent  if  possible,  and  though  their 
increase  of  production  had  been  less  than 
100,000  tons  per  annum  for  the  preceding  nine 
years,  they  added  500,000  tons  the  next  year, 
and  in  1865  produced  nearly  900,000  tons  more 
than  they  had  ever  done  before.  I  have  shown* 
the  production  of  the  two  countries  from  1854 
to  1862.  The  Morrill  tariff,  which  raised  the 
duty  to  $6,  went  into  effect  in  1861.  In  1864 
the  duty  was  raised  to  $9.  The  results  have 
been  as  follows  : 

United 

England.  States. 


1863  .  4,510,040  947,604 

1864  .  4,767,951  1,135,497 

1865  .  4,819,254  931,582 

1866  .  4,523,897  1,350,943 

1867  . ; .  4,761,028  1,461,626 

1868  .  -  1,603,000 

1869  . . t .  -  1,900,000 


I  regret  my  inability  to  ascertain  the  Eng¬ 
lish  production  for  1868  and  1869  ;  but  in  view 
of  the  average  of  the  five  years  quoted,  and  the 
fact  that  the  production  of  1865  exceeds  so 
largely  the  years  that  succeeded  as  well  as  those 
that  preceded  it,  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  it 
has  not  been  in  excess  of  that  year  in  either 
of  those  omitted.  These  figures  confirm  the 
impression  that  England  has  attained  her 
maximum  production  ;  while  her  increase  since 
1863  has  been  scarcely  appreciable,  ours  has 
increased  about  one  hundred  and  ten  per  cent. 
In  view  of  all  these  facts  I  think  that  it  appears 
again  in  the  matter  of  pig-iron,  as  it  did  in  that 
of  cast-steel  and  Bessemer  rails,  that  a  protect¬ 
ive  duty  has  not  been,  as  Mr.  Wells  asserts,  a 
tax  on,  but  a  boon  to  the  American  consumer. 

COAL  AND  THE  BRITISH  NORTH  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

I  have  said  that  the  report  is  devoted  to  the 
promotion  of  the  interests  of  England  and  her 
North  American  colonies,  and  have,  I  think, 
shown  that  if  its  suggestions  were  carried  into 
effect  it  would  arrest  the  rapid  increase  we  are 
making  in  the  production  of  iron  and  steel  and 
remand  us  to  commercial  and  political  depend¬ 
ence  on  our  haughty  and  faithless  rival.  I  pro¬ 
pose  now  to  illustrate  Mr.  W ells’ s  palpable  de¬ 
sire  to  promote  the  interests  of  England’s  North 
American  colonies — the  new  dominion,  that 
asylum  of  our  foes  in  war  and  base  of  illicit 
operations  against  our  revenue  system  in  peace. 

The  sea-board  provinces,  whether  on  the 
Atlantic  or  Pacific  ocean,  are  suffering  discon¬ 
tent  that  is  rapidly  becoming  chronic.  From 
1854  to  1866  the  colonists  were  more  than  con¬ 
tented,  they  were  proud  and  joyous ;  emigrants 
flowed  in  and  settled  among  them.  They  con¬ 
trasted  their  condition  with  ours  and  plumed 
themselves  upon  their  superior  prosperity. 
Their  clip  of  wool  and  crops  of  cereals  increased 
annually,  their  fisheries  were  increasingly  prof¬ 
itable,  and  their  coal  mines  yielded  unparalleled 


profits — in  one  year  one  coal  company  having 
paid  its  stockholders  the  almost  fabulous  profit 
of  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  per  cent.  They 
were  more  than  hopeful  of  the  future  ;  they  were 
confident  and  arrogant.  With  them  the  southern 
confederacy  was  a  foregone  conclusion,  and  with 
it  as  an  ally  and  England  as  their  sponsor  they 
saw  the  near  approach  of  the  day  when  this  triple 
alliance  should  hold  the  Yankee  States  as  in  a 
vice  and  crush  or  strangle  them  at  pleasure. 
This  was  in  1864.  Their  tone  is  less  joyous 
now.  Indeed,  it  is  sad  unto  wailing.  Listen 
to  one  of  them,  a  Nova  Scotian,  as  he  pours  the 
story  of  their  wrongs  and  sufferings  through 
the  columns  of  Lippincott’s  Magazine  for  July 
last : 

“  But  the  petition  of  three  hundred  thousand  good 
subjects  was  treated  with  indifference,  and  even  an 
inquiry  into  their  grievances  was  refused.  Then  it 
was,  in  the  bitter  sorrow  and  indignation  that  filled 
us  at  that  time,  that  we  turned  our  eyes  to  the  great 
nation  beside  us  for  assistance.  But  even  there  no 
help  was  to  be  had.  The  reciprocity  treaty  had  been 
abrogated  in  return  for  the  sympathy  and  assistance 
which  Canada  had  given  to  the  South ;  and  the  only 
thing  which  could  support  our  commerce  and  en¬ 
courage  our  industries  under  the  heavier  duties  of 
Canada  was  thus  denied  us  and  continues  to  be  de¬ 
nied  us.  At  the  present  moment  wo  are  in  a  sad 
case.  The  duties  and  taxes  of  the  Canadian  admin¬ 
istration  bear  heavily  upon  us;  our  eommerco  is 
languishing,  our  industries  are  all  but  paralyzed. 
The  markets  which  nature  intended  for  us,  and  which 
commerce  had  marked  out  for  her  own,  are  closed  to 
us,  and  in  consequence  wo  fish  less,  mine  less,  manu¬ 
facture  less,  export  less.  Our  political  position  is  as 
bad  as  perplexing.  We  will  not  continue  in  our 
present  union  with  Canada  if  wo  can  help  it.  We 
have  laid  our  grievances  before  England.  England 
refers  us  to  Canada;  Canada  refers  us  to  England. 
England  trusts  to  our  loyalty,  Canada  to  our  cupidity 
or  our  fear,  to  keep  us  in  the  union.  If  even  we 
succeed  in  getting  repeal  we  cannot  stand  alone  with¬ 
out  a  treaty  with ■  the  United  States.  If  that  is  denied 
us — and  who  can  doubt  it? — we  must  even  seek  our 
own  good  in  transferring  our  allegiance.” 

This  is  a  faithful  portraiture  of  the  condition 
of  the  British  provinces  on  the  Atlantic  coast ; 
and  that  of  British  Columbia  on  the  Pacific  and 
Puget  sound  is  quite  as  hopeless.  It  was  once 
the  base  of  an  extended  system  of  smuggling 
over  our  borders,  but  the  provincial  Govern¬ 
ment  being  unable  to  support  itself  by  internal 
taxes  was  compelled  to  raise  revenue  by  a 
tariff  almost  as  heavy  as  our  own.  This  de¬ 
stroyed  the  profitable  business  of  smuggling 
across  our  borders,  and  brought  Victoria,  the 
city  which  it  had  been  fondly  hoped  would  be 
the  commercial  rival  of  San  Francisco,  to 
absolute  despair.  It  is  a  deserted  city.  In  July 
last,  as  my  colleagues  on  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  can  attest,  more  than  half  the  build¬ 
ings  within  its  limits  were  tenantless  and  for 
rent  or  sale,  and  at  high  noon  its  streets  were  as 
deserted  as  though  pestilence  had  scourged  it. 

Let  me  pause,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  ask  what  has 
wrought  this  wondrous  change,  and  why  more 
than  one  hundred  thousand  of  the  people  of 
the  provinces  during  the  last  year  came  to 
dwell  among  us  and  share  the  burdens  of  our 
great  war  debt?  These  results  are  the  legit¬ 
imate  consequences  of  wise  and  patriotic 
legislation  by  Congress.  Commissioner  Wells 
understands  it  as  well  as  the  rest  of  us.  He 
knows  as  well  as  the  Nova  Scotian  I  have  just 


12 


quoted  that  the  repeal  of  the  reciprocity  treaty 
wrought  the  ruin  of  the  provinces.  That  treaty, 
which  was  forced  upon  us  by  our  old  southern 
masters,  was  designed,  especially  to  promote 
the  prosperity  of  the  British  North  American 
provinces  at  the  cost  of  the  northern  States  of 
the  Union.  It  was  specially  designed  by  the 
planters  of  the  South  as  a  blow  at  the  prosperity 
of  the  farmers  and  stock-breeders  of  the  north¬ 
west .  It  went  into  effect  in  June,  1854,  and 
expired,  or  I  may  properly  say  was  rescinded 
by  Congress,  in  March,  I860.  It  was  admira¬ 
bly  adapted  to  accomplish  its  purpose,  and  the 
period  of  its  duration  was  that  of  the  greatest 
growth  of  Britain’s  power  along  our  borders. 
That  gentlemen  who  represent  the  grain-grow¬ 
ing  States  may  not  suspect  me  of  misstating  the 
object  of  the  reciprocity  movement,  I  beg  leave 
to  invite  their  attention  to  a  few  words  from 
pages  95  and  96  of  that  remarkable  book  called 
Cotton  is  King,  the  politico-economical  text¬ 
book  of  the  authors  of  the  late  rebellion  : 

“This  is  the  prosent  aspect  [1858]  of  the  provision 
question  as  it  regards  slavery  extension.  Prices  are 
approximating  tho  maximum  point  beyond  which 
our  provisions  cannot  be  fed  to  slaves  unless  there  is 
a  corresponding  increase  in  the  price  of  cotton.  Such 
a  result  was  not  anticipated  by  southern  statesmen 
when  they  had  succeeded  in  overthrowing  the  pro¬ 
tective  policy,  destroying  the  UnitedStates  Bank,  and 
•establishing  the  sub-Treasnry  system. 

“  And  why  has  this  occurred  1  The  mines  of  Cali¬ 
fornia  prevented  both  the  free-trade  tariff  and  the 
sub-Treasury  scheme  from  exhausting  the  country  of 
the  precious  metals,  extinguishing  the  circulation 
of  bank  notes,  andreducing  (he  prices  of  agricultural 
products  to  the  specie  value.  At  the  date  of  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  the  Nebraska  bill  the  multiplication  of  provis¬ 
ions  by  their  more  extended  cultivation  teas  the  only 
measure  left  that  could  produce  a  reduction  of  prices 
and  meet  the  wants  of  the  planters.  Tho  Canadian 
reciprocity  treaty,  since  secured,  will  bring  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  the  British  North  American  colonies,  free 
of  duty ,  into  competition  with  those  of  the  United  States 
when  prices  with  us  rule  high,  and  tend  to  diminish 
their  cost.” 

But  this  treaty  has  been  rescinded.  Why 
refer  to  it?  Does  the  Commissioner  propose 
to  renew  it?  No,  sir;  that  would  be  frank, 
and  not  in  accordance  with  his  practice.  He 
moves  stealthily  toward  liis  sinister  objects. 
He  is  a  protective  free-trader,  a  free-trade  pro¬ 
tectionist,  a  disciple  of  Henry  Clay  but  an 
advocate  of  the  free-trade  dogmas  of  John  C. 
Calhoun.  He  does  not  propose  a  renewal  of 
the  reciprocity  treaty  ;  but  asserting  that  all 
customs  duties  are  taxes  and  increase  the  price 
of  the  article  on  which  they  are  levied,  he  de¬ 
mands  cheap  fuel,  food,  and  beer,  and  proposes 
to  secure  these  desirable  objects  by  removing 
all  duties  from  articles  the  production  of  the 
North  American  provinces.  Nor  does  he  do 
this  in  terms.  Taking  the  leading  staples  of  the 
provinces  separately  he  submits  specious  but 
false  reasons  for  the  removal  of  all  duties  from 
each  of  them.  He  would  give  the  people  of  the 
provinces  the  benefits  they  derived  from  the 
reciprocity  treaty  without  stipulating  for  any 
of  the  few  benefits  it  brought  his  countrymen. 
To  adopt  his  recommendations  in  this  behalf 
would  be  to  pay  from  the  Treasury  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States  annually  to  the  colonists  from  six 
million  to  ten  million  dollars  as  a  consideration 
for  their  continued  submission  to  British  legis¬ 


lation  and  colonial  policy.  They  are  tending 
toward  the  Union.  They  were  alien  enemies 
during  the  war,  but  millions  of  them  now  de¬ 
sire  to  be  friends  and  fellow-countrymen,  and 
the. way  to  promote  this  consummation  so  de¬ 
voutly  to  be  wished  is  to  let  them  know  that  the 
avenue  to  free  trade  with  us  is  through  annex¬ 
ation.  This  accomplished  they  would  share  our 
prosperity  and  our  responsibilities,  and  their 
country  would  cease  to  be  a  base  of  hostilities 
as  it  now  is  in  peace  and  war. 

Let  me  not  be  suspected  of  misrepresenting 
the  position  of  Mr.  Wells.  The  principal  arti¬ 
cles  the  provinces  export  are  lumber,  wool, 
coal,  barley,  and  the  other  cereals,  and  from 
these  he  would  remove  all  duties  though  they 
yielded  during  the  year  which  ended  June  80, 
1868,  $4,352,770  49  in  gold,  or  about  six  mil¬ 
lions  in  currency.  It  is  true  some  of  the  wool 
which  contributed  to  this  amount  came  from 
other  countries,  and  some  of  the  coal  from  Eng¬ 
land,  but  in  order  to  restore  prosperity  to  the 
trade  of  the  provinces  he  would  admit  their 
staples  free,  even  though  other  countries  might 
share  the  advantage. 

Though  very  urgent  that  the  duty  should  be 
taken  off  Canadian  barley  he  makes  no  specific 
recommendation  as  to  the  removal  of  duties 
from  the  other  cereals.  He  merely  speaks  of 
the  “extreme  emergency”  that  can  “justify 
a  tax  on  the  breadstuff's  and  food  of  a  nation.  ’  ’ 
His  argument  in  favor  of  free  grain  and  pro¬ 
visions  from  the  provinces  is  enforced  in  this 
wise : 

“Coal  is  a  necessity  of  life  next  in  importance  to 
food;  indeed,  as  both  are  in  our  climate  absolutely 
indispensable,  it  cannot  be  said  that  either  is  more 
or  less  needful  than  the  other,  for  life  cannot  be  sus¬ 
tained  without  both.  The  universally  rcoognizcd 
principle  of  taxation  that  a  tax  should  be  taken 
from  what  can  be  spared  forbids  the  laying  of  a  tax 
upon  that  which  is  indispensable  to  rich  and  poor 
alike.” 

A  free  translation  of  all  which  is,  that  as  New 
England  has  no  coal  and  cannot  raise  her  own 
supply  of  grain  and  provisions,  and  can  get  both 
cheaper  from  the  British  colonies  than  she  can 
from  the  prairies  of  the  northwest  or  the  coal 
fields  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  or 
North  Carolina,  it  is  a  crime  against  nature  and 
the  British  Government  to  lay  duties  on  the 
grain  and  provisions  of  the  provinces. 

Leaving  the  question  of  the  propriety  of  re¬ 
taining  duties  on  grain,  live  stock,  and  provis¬ 
ions  to  the  consideration  of  gentlemen  from 
the  West,  I  propose  to  examine  what  the  Com¬ 
missioner  has  to  say  on  the  subject  of  coal. 
But  before  entering  more  fully  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject  let  me  apply  to  grain  and  provisions  the 
argument  he  makes  for  free  provincial  coal, 
associating  them  with  it  in  his  text,  that  we 
may  see  whether  it  does  not  apply  to  them  with 
greater  force  in  proportion  as  Wisconsin,  Iowa, 
Minnesota,  and  Kansas  are  more  remote  from 
“the  northeastern  sea-board”  than  the  coal¬ 
fields  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Maryland, 
and  Pennsylvania  : 

“  If  the  enhanced  price  paid  by  the  consumer  for  his 
coal,”  wheat,  corn,  or  provisions,  “in  consequence 
of  the  existence  of  this  duty,  were  all  paid  to  the  Penn* 


sylvania  miner”  or  western  farmer  “it  would  be,  of 
course,  great  injustice;  but  the  country  would  be  none 
the  poorer  because  the  law  took  money  from  one  man 
and  gave  it  to  another.  But  it  happens  that  while 
the  consumer  pays  the  increase,  the  immediate. pro¬ 
ducer  is  not  benefited,  inasmuch  as  the  whole  en¬ 
hanced  price  is  expendedin  paying  for  the  transport¬ 
ation  of  the  coal,”  grain,'  or  provision  “to  a  greater 
distance;  in  other  words,  the  payment  is  for  unneces¬ 
sary  transportation,  i.  e .,  useless  labor.  Now,  no 
acquisition  of  skill  can  change  this.  It  is  fixed  by 
the  la  ws  of  nature.  To  the  end  of  time  it  will  cost 
more;  i.  e.,  it  will  take  more  labor  to  bring  every  ton 
of  coal.”  grain,  or  provisions ‘‘from  western  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,”  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  or 
Kansas  “across  the  Alleghany  mountains”  or  the 
lakes  “to  the  northeastern  sea-board  than  to  bring  it 
from  NovaScotia.  So  longasaduty  makes  it  possible 
to  bring  coal,”  grain,  orprovisions  “from  theformer 
source,  so  long  that  unnecessary  work  will  be  done; 
but  the  price  does  not  represent  a  profit,  but  the  cost 
of  useless  labor.” 

Is  not  this  argument  conclusive?  Does  it 
not  prove  that  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  liege 
subjects  of  the  new  Dominion  should  grow  our 
grain  and  stock,  and  grind  our  flour,  as  well 
as  mine  our  coal  as  long  as  their  freedom  from 
our  war  debt  will  enable  them  to  do  it  more 
cheaply  than  we  can?  If  this  be  not  the  con¬ 
clusion  to  which  it  leads  I  hope  some  gentle¬ 
man  from  a  grain-growing  or  cattle  raising  dis¬ 
trict  will  show  us  why. 

Mr.  Wells  does  not  like  Pennsylvania,  and 
throughout  his  report  ignores  the  essential 
facts  that  Virginiaand  North  Carolinahave  tide¬ 
water  coal-fields  of  better  quality  and  greater 
extent  than  those  of  Nova  Scotia,  from  which 
New  England  can  be  more  cheaply  supplied 
than  from  the  provinces  ;  and  that  Maryland 
sends  more  bituminous  coal  from  her  mountains 
to  the  “northern  sea-board”  than  Pennsylvania 
does  or  ever  did.  In  this,  however,  he  is  as 
frank  and  truthful  as  in  other  respects.  I 
do  not  -wonder  that  he  dislikes  the  people  of 
Pennsylvania.  By  their  persistent-energy,  as 
the  letter  of  Thomas  Firth  &  Son  shows,  they 
have  so  increased  the  supply  and  reduced  the 
price  of  cast-steel  as  to  seriously  affect  the 
profits  of  his  Sheffield  clients  ;  and  by  the  large 
increase  they  are  making  of  blast  furnaces 
threaten  to  enter  the  markets  of  the  world  at  an 
early  day  againstall  England  with  pig-iron.  Nor 
do  I  forget  that  it  was  Pennsylvania  Representa¬ 
tives  and  economists  that  hastened  to  bring  to 
the  attention  of  the  country  the  equivocations, 
duplicity,  and  falsehoods  with  which  his  last 
annual  report  abounded. 

Speaking  of  the  duty  on  coal  he  says  “  it  is 
urged  as  a  protective  measure,”  and  refers  to 
it  as  a  “  tax  on  fuel.”  This  involves  but  two 
misstatements  of  fact,  namely,  that  the  duty  is 
urged  or  levied  for  protection,  and  that  it  is  a 
tax  on  any  American  consumer  of  coal.  Neither 
of  these  allegations  is  true.  The  protectionists 
of  the  country  do  not  regard  the  question  of 
the  duty  on  coalas  a  politico-economical  ques¬ 
tion,  and  the  New  York  Tribune  advocates  its 
repeal  as  a  means  of  proving  the  absurdity  of 
the  free  trade  argument.  They  do  not  urge  if 
as  a  protective,  but  as  a  revenue  measure,  and, 
in  view  of  the  present  condition  of  the  prov¬ 
inces,  asqminently  a  political  question.  As  a 
political  question  it  has  great  significance,  as 
every  provincial  exporter  of  coal  knows  ex¬ 


perimentally  that  the  duty  is  not  paid  by  the 
American  consumer,  but  is  deducted  from  the 
extraordinary  profits  he  would  realize  if  the 
duty  were  removed,  and  which  he  did  realize 
during  the  continuance  of  the  reciprocity 
treaty.  As  an  economical  or  protective  meas¬ 
ure  it  is  not  worth  consideration  ;  as  a  revenue 
measure  it  involves  the  receipt  by  the  Treasury 
of  less  than  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  gold 
annually,  a  comparatively  small  matter  but  of 
some  importance  ;  but  it  is  as  a  political  ques¬ 
tion  that  it  is  most  worthy  of  consideration. 
As  Mr.  Wells  and  the  free-trade  league  have 
industriously  promoted  a  general  misapprehen¬ 
sion  of  this  subject  I  propose,  as  I  have  said, 
to  devote  a  few  minutes  jlto  its  elucidation. 

I  propose  to  show,  first,  that  as  an  econom¬ 
ical  question  it  is  not  of  sufficient  importance  to 
deserve  consideration.  This  can  be  done  by 
inviting  attention  to  the  relation  of  the  total 
amount  of  foreign  coal  imported  from  all 
sources  to  the  amount  consumed  in  the  north¬ 
ern  Atlantic  States  alone.  Were  the  whole 
amount  involved  it  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
affect  the  supply  or  price,  as  the  grand  total 
imported  from  all  countries  on  both  coasts  has 
exceeded  000,000  tons  in  but  three  years,  and 
500,000  in  but  three  others,  and  the  con¬ 
sumption  of  coal  east  of  the  Alleghany  mount¬ 
ains  and  north  of  the  Potomac  will  be  about 
20,000,000  tons  this  year.  What  the  c-on- 
■  sumption  is  on  the  Pacific,  where  coal  from 
British  Columbia  was  until  within  a  few  years 
1  the  sole  dependence,  I  have  no  means  of 
making  an  accurate  estimate.  AVhatever  the 
amount  is  it  should  be  deducted  from  the  total 
in  estimating  the  percentage  of  supply  de¬ 
rived  bv  New  England  from  Nova  Scotia  and 
England;  the  balance,  whatever  it  may  be,  is 
assuredly  not  sufficient  to  affect  either  the 
price  or  supply. 

But  the  question  does  not  relate  to  the  whole 
of  this  balance,  but  only  to  so  much  as  would 
be  the  amount  imported  if  the  duty  were  off  in 
excess  of  that  brought  in  under  duty.  As  Eng¬ 
lish  coal  has  always  been  subject  to  duty  we 
have  no  means  of  ascertaining  how  mu  chi  the- 
repeal  of  the  duty  might  increase  importation 
from  that  country ;  but  as  her  scientific  men. 
have  admonished  her  of  the  danger  of  exhaust* 
ing  her  supplies  of  coal — and  even  Mr.  Wells 
agrees  with  recogwized  authorities  in  believing 
that  her  production  has  reached  its  maximum — 
and  as  she  has  more  advantageous  markets 
nearer  home,  the  repeal  of  the  duty  would  not 
probably  affect  perceptibly  the  impefrtation 
from  that  quarter. 

How  much  the  imposition  of  the  duty  on  pro¬ 
vincial  coal  has  affected  the  total  amount  im¬ 
ported  we  can  ascertain,  but  unfortunately  the- 
Treasury  reports  do  not  enable  us  to  distinguish, 
between  the  amount  imported  on  either  coast. 
The  Pacific  States,  as  I  have  said,  formerly- 
depended  on  British  Columbia;  but  since  the 
opening  of  mines  at  Mont  Diablo,  Seattle,  and 
other  points  within  our  territory,  the  quantity 
of  provincial  coal  imported  is  said  to  be  dimin¬ 
ishing.  But  assuming  that  the  whole  amount 
received  on  both  coasts  came  from  Nova  Scotia 


14 


and  was  consumed  in  New  England,  the  repeal 
of  the  treaty  and  imposition  of  the  duty  cannot 
have  had  an  appreciable  effect  on  the  price  or 
supply  in  the  markets  of  that  section,  as  will 
appear  from  the  facts  I  am  about  to  submit. 

The  amount  of  provincial  coal  imported  into 
the  country,  on  both  coasts,  has  exceeded 
400,000  tons  in  but  two  years  ;  and  the  largest 
amount  imported  in  any  one  year  was  465,194 
tons,  which  was  in  1865.  With  one  other  excep¬ 
tion,  that  of  1866,  when  the  amount  reached 
404,254  tons,  the  total  import  on  both  coasts 
never  reached  340,000.  It  is  to  ^e  regretted 
that  the  proportion  of  these  amounts  that  went 
into  California  and  Oregon  cannot  be  ascer¬ 
tained.  Could  this  be  done  it  would  make 
the  pretense  that  the  duty  on  Nova  Scotia  coal 
affects  either  the  price  or  supply  of  coal  in  New 
England  so  supremely  absurd  that  Mr.  Wells 
himself  would  abandon  it.  But  the  sum  in  con¬ 
troversy  is  less  than  this ;  it  is  the  difference 
between  the  average  amount  annually  imported 
free  under  the  treaty  and  the  amount  which 
comes  to  our  markets  and  pays  a  duty  of  $1  25 
per  ton. 

The  duty,  as  I  have  said,  came  into  effect  on 
the  expiration  of  the  treaty  in  March,  1866, 
so  that  the  year  in  which  the  largest  amount 
was  imported  was  that  immediately  preceding 
its  repeal.  I  propose  to  ascertain  the  amount 
about  which  this  wide-spread  controversy  has 
been  raised,  by  contrasting  the  average  import¬ 
ation  for  the  three  last  years  of  free  coal  under 
the  treaty,  including  that  which  so  far  exceeded 
all  others,  with  the  three  years  immediately 
succeeding  the  repeal  of  the  treaty,  during 
which  it  paid  $1  25  duty.  During  the  last  three 
years  in  which  it  was  free  from  duty  the  aver¬ 
age  annual  importation  was  355,490  tons,  and 
during  the  three  succeeding  years  in  which  it 
paid  duty  the  average  annual  importation  has 
been  326,626,  showing  an  annual  difference  of 
but  31,864  tons.  Surely  no  man  with  less  ) 
effrontery  than  Mr.  Wells  will  say  that  the 
deduction  of  31,864  tons  from  one  of  many 
sources  from  which  a  supply  ranging  at  about 
20,000,000  tons  are  derived  can  have  affected 
either  the  supply  or  price  of  the  commodity. 
But  if  we  assume  that  one  third  of  the  import¬ 
ation  of  provincial  coal  is  upon  the  Pacific 
coast — which  I  think  we  may  safely  do — we 
will  see  how  utterly  inappreciable  must  be  the 
effect  of  the  maintenance  or  repeal  of  the  duty 
on  provincial  coal. 

Thus,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  must  become  appar¬ 
ent  that  the  maintenance  of  the  duty  is  not,  as 
Mr.  Wells  asserts,  “urged  as  a  protective  meas¬ 
ure.”  Surely  those  who  have  the  machinery 
to  bring  20,000,000  tons  to  market  annually 
need  not  shrink  from  the  effect  of  a  cause  which 
increases  or  diminishes  the  total  amount  twenty 
or  thirty  thousand  tons  per  annum. 

1  propose  next  to  show  the  falsity  of  Mr. 
Wells’s  other  proposition,  namely,  that  this 
duty  is  a  tax  on  the  consumer.  Happily,  this 
is  susceptible  of  demonstration.  The  Pictou 
coal  is  of  a  lower  grade,  and  consequently  of 
less  value  than  the  Cumberland  coal  of  Mary¬ 
land  or  the  tide-water  coal  of  Virginia.  Its 


price  is  always  lower  than  these  in  any  market. 
The  average  price  of  Nova  Scotia  coal  by  cargo 
at  Boston  per  ton  of  2,240  pounds  during  1861, 
the  first  year  of  the  war,  as  shown  by  weekly 
quotations  in  the  Boston  shipping-list  and 
price-current,  was  $4  67.  It  was  then  duty 
free,  and  so  continued  for  more  than  five  years. 
The  war  did  not  inflict  greenbacks  and  an 
inflated  currency  upon  the  coal  operators  of 
Nova  Scotia.  It  did  not  create  an  enormous 
system  of  internal  taxation  to  oppress  them. 
Their  laborers  were  not  tempted  by  patriotism 
or  offers  of  bounty,  or  taken  by  draft  to  the 
battle-field  to  bleed  and  die  for  their  coun¬ 
try,  as  were  those  of  the  American  operator. 
Nor  did  all  these  causes  combine  to  make  an 
increase  of  wages  necessary  to  the  support  of 
the  laborer  and  his  family.  No,  sir;  their 
wages  remained  as  before,  or  were  reduced  by 
the  fact  that  thousands  of  able-bodied  sympa¬ 
thizers  with  the  rebellion  sought  safety  and 
employment  in  the  provinces ;  and  British  emi¬ 
gration,  that  but  for  the  war  would  have  come 
to  us,  flowed  in  upon  them.  Our  emigration 
which  for  the  six  years  preceding  the  war  had 
exceeded  an  average  of  140,000,  fell  off  to  less 
than  92,000  in  each  of  the  years  1861  and  1862, 
although  the  emigration  from  Liverpool  to 
America  was  not  diminished  during  these  years ; 
while  therefore  we  suffered  for  the  want  of  labor, 
it  was  from  these  causes  for  a  time  redundant 
in  the  provinces.  All  the  conditions  were  such 
as  to  enable  the  provincial  operators  to  produce 
and  sell  coal  cheaper  during  the  war  than  they 
had  done  before.  But  was  the  price  in  Boston 
regulated  by  its  cost?  No,  prices  never  are; 
•it  depended  on  our  necessities,  and  followed 
the  price  of  American  coal.  Thus  the  average 
price  in  1862,  as  shown  by  the  authority  I  have 
already  quoted,  was  $5  60 ;  in  1863,  $7  40 ; 
in  1864,  $10  40 ;  in  1865,  $9  60.  In  March 
of  the  next  year  the  treaty  expired,  and  it 
became  subject  to  duty,  and  according  to  Mr. 
Wells’s  theory  must  have  gone  up  $1  25,  or  to 
$10  85  per  ton.  But  in  this  case  his  theory  is 
in  conflict  with  the  facts,  as  it  is  so  frequently, 
for  in  that  year  coal  sold,  duty  paid,  at  $8  54, 
netting  the  exporter  and  foreign  carrier  but 
$7  29,  and  in  1869  it  gave  them  forty-four  cents 
less,  having  averaged  but  $8  10 ;  and  in  1868  it 
averaged  $8  16,  so  that  in  each  and  every  year 
it  bore  the  same  relation  to  Cumberland  coal 
that  it  has  always  borne  since  the  latter  was 
introduced  to  the  New  England  market  about 
twenty  years  ago,  and  sold  at  about  a  dollar 
a  ton  lower. 

These  facts,  in  my  judgment,  prove  two 
things ;  one  of  which  is  that  the  Acadian  coal 
operators  do  not  send  us  coal  as  a  benevolent, 
but  as  a  commercial  operation,  out  of  which 
they  make  all  they  can  at  the  prices  current  in 
our  market ;  and  the  other  is,  that  they  can 
afford  to  pay  the  duty  and  make  a  living  profit 
by  selling  us  the  very  limited  amount  they  can 
mine  at  the  rates  current  in  our  markets.  In 
this  they  obey  the  law  which  is  now  teaching 
our  western  producers  of  grain  by  a  most  pain¬ 
ful  lesson  the  importance  of  a  home'market ; 
that  is,  that  he  who  has  to  carry  his  commodi- 


15 


ties  to  a  distant  market  must  pay  all  thecliarges 
thereon,  while  he  whose  goods  are  sought  by 
customers  fixes  his  own  prices  and  makes  the 
purchaser  pay  all  charges. 

It  thus  becomes  apparent  that  the  repeal  of 
the  duty  on  coal  would  not  reduce  the  price  of 
that  article  in  New  England  one  cent,  per  ton 
or  increase  the  amount  brought  to  market 
appreciably ;  its  only  effect  would  be  to  take 
from  the  Treasury  an  average  of  from  four  to 
five  hundred  thousand  dollars  in  gold  annually 
and  give  it  to  the  colonists  as  a  reward  for 
remaining  contented  subjects  of  her  Britannic 
majesty ;  a  proposition  at  which  my  patriotism 
revolts,  though  it  be  ever  so  earnestly  recom¬ 
mended  by  Mr.  Commissioner  Wells. 

now  THE  SOUTH  SHOULD  DIVERSIFY  ITS  INDUSTRY. 

I  think  I  have  sufficiently  disclosed  the  de¬ 
votion  of  our  Special  Commissioner  of  Rev¬ 
enue  to  the  interests  of  England;  but  I  cannot 
refrain  from  inviting  the  attention  of  gentlemen 
from  the  South  to  the  treacherous  suggestions  he 
offers  them  on  the  subject  of  the  proper  means 
of  diversifying  their  industry.  On  this  subject 
he  says : 

“  Tho  large  amount  of  capital  thus  becoming  annu¬ 
ally  available  at  the  South  will  undoubtedly  seek  in 
great  part  investment  in  domestic  and  local  enter¬ 
prises  and  speedily  load  to  the  establishment  of  man¬ 
ufactures  on  an  extensive  scale.  Tho  true  diversity 
of  employment  which  results  from  freedom  has  now, 
therefore,  become  to  the  South  for  the  first  time  pos¬ 
sible;  and  southern  capital  can  soon  be  advantage¬ 
ously  applied  to  the  manufacture  of  agricultural 
tools  and  implements,  leather,  wagons,  wooden-ware, 
soap,  starch,  clothing,  and  similar  articles.  These 
are  manufactures  in  which  iron,  steel,  and  cloth  are 
raw  materials.  They  employ  the  largest  amount  of 
labor  in  proportion  to  product  and  capital  and  war¬ 
rant  the  payment  of  high  wages.  On  the  other  hand , 
what  are  commonly  called  manufactures,  namely,  iron 
and  steel,  and  cotton  and  woolen  cloth,  are  examples  of 
concentration.  They  require  large  capital,  employ  hut 
few  hands,  and  would  naturally  come  much  later.  We 
already  have  in  the  United  States  an  excess  of  cotton 
and  woolen  spindles,  and  to  invest  capital  in  more  ivould 
he  simply  a  ivaste  ivhen  there  are  vast  needs  at  the  South 
requiring  far  less  capital  and  warranting  much  greater 
compensation  for  labor  than  can  he  paid  in  textile  fab¬ 
rics”. 

Most  of  the  southern  States  abound  in  coal, 
varieties  of  iron  ore  of  very  high  quality,  lime¬ 
stone,  and  water-power.  Inaccessible  as  their 
interior  districts  are  from  the  sea-board,  freight 
adds  heavily  to  the  cost  of  iron  purchased  either 
from  the  Atlantic  States  or  England.  They 
need  preeminently  among  the  States  of  the 
Union  an  extension  of  railroads  and  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  founderies,  rolling-mills,  locomo¬ 
tive  works,  and  machine-shops.  The  primary 
prerequisite  to  the  ample  development  of  the 
great  resources  of  the  southern  States  is  an 
adequate  supply  of  cheap  iron  and  the  means 
of  shaping  it  for  use.  They  have  few  skilled 
laborers,  and  the  manufacture  of  pig-iron  and 
the  rolling  of  rails  require  but  comparatively 
few  skilled  men.  The  digging  and  hauling 
of  coal,  ore,  and  limestone  require  no  special 
preparation.  It  is  work  for  the  unskilled 
laborer  at  which  freedmen  can  succeed,  and 
they  are  therefore  in  a  condition  to  engage- in 
the  production  of  this  article  of  primary  im¬ 
portance,  though  they  may  not  have  the  trained 
artisansfor  the  introduction  of  simpler  branches 
of  mechanics. 


The  cotton-growing  portion  of  the  United 
States  is  the  proper  locality  for  cotton  facto¬ 
ries.  The  South  can  spin  yarn  and  produce 
unbleached  fabrics  at  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
per  cent,  less  than  the  same  work  can  be  done 
in  New  England,  and  cheaper  even  than  it  can 
be  done  by  the  underpaid  laborers  of  Great 
Britain.  Will  gentlemen  from  the  South  con¬ 
sider  that  what  the  picking-room  is  to  the 
English  or  northern  factory  the  gin-room  is  to 
the  factory  near  the  cotton-field,  and  that  all 
charges  incurred  between  the  two  would  be 
saved  by  the, southern  manufacturer?  Before 
cotton  reaches  either  New  or  Old  England  it 
must  be  pressed  and  baled  and  hooped  and 
marked  and  transported,  losing  interest  and 
paying  freight  and  commission,  at  each  stage 
of  the  transportation ;  and  when  it  has  arrived 
at  the  threshold  of  the  distant  factory  it  must 
be  freed  from  its  hoops,  stripped  of  its  bagging, 
and  put  through  the  processes  of  the  picking- 
room  to  restore  it  with  as  little  damage  as  pos¬ 
sible  to  the  condition  in  which  it  was  when  it 
left  the  gin.  From  all  these  charges  the  manu¬ 
facturer  in  the  cotton  district  is  free ;  and  to¬ 
gether  they  amount  to  what  would  be  a  profit 
which  in  connection  with  the  improvement  in 
quality  from  the  use  of  the  unbroken  fiber  he 
would  use  would  enable  him  to  spin  yarns  for 
all  the  northern  States  and  England  too. 

But  this  would  hurt  the  English  cotton- spin¬ 
ner;  this  would  advance  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  to  the  detriment  of  England,  as 
would  the  establishment  in  the  midst  of  the 
coal  and  iron  fields  of  Virginia,  Tennessee, 
Arkansas,  Alabama,  and  Georgia  of  furnaces, 
founderies,  rolling-mills,  and  steel-works.  For-  ■ 
tunately,  the  people  of  the  South  are  deeply 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  the  early 
introduction  of  these  branches  of  manufac¬ 
tures  ;  and  among  the  sixty-five  furnaces  erected 
during  the  last  year  four  are  in  Virginia,  six  in 
Missouri,  three  in  Kentucky,  one  in  Georgia, 
two  in  Alabama,  and  one  in  Tennessee.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  probable  that  very  general  heed 
will  be  given  by  the  people  of  the  South  to  the 
advice  offered  by  Mr.  Wells,  or  that  they  will 
abandon  the  hope  of  exporting  their  cotton  in 
yarn  and  fabrics,  the  manufacture  of  which  will 
give  employment  to  and  improve  the  condition 
of  their  now  unemployed  men,  women,  and 
children,  or  will  forego  the  privilege  of  an  ade¬ 
quate  supply  of  good  and  cheap  iron  manu¬ 
factured  in  their  midst,  in  order  to  turn  their 
attention  to  making  u  wooden- ware,  soap, 
starch,  clothing  and  similar  articles.”  They 
will  not,  I  apprehend,  be  willing  to  forego  their 
greatest  source  of  profit  in  order  to  oblige  him 
by  permitting  England  still  to  retain  her  su¬ 
premacy  as  the  cotton-spinner  and  principal 
iron  manufacturer  of  the  world. 

WHAT  TAXES  SHOULD  BE  REPEALED. 

Mr.  Chairman,  permit  me  to  reiterate  the 
fact  that  duties  which  serve  to  develop  the 
resources  of  a  country  and  cheapen  commodi¬ 
ties,  by  inducing  home  competition,  the  diver¬ 
sification  of  labor  and  the  opening  of  new 
sources  of  employment,  and  increase  the  gen¬ 
eral  stock  produced,  are  not  taxes  even  though 


16 


they  fail  to  reduce  immediately  the  price  of 
the  commodity  on  which  they  are  imposed,  as 
adequate  duties  on  cast- steel  and  Bessemer 
rails  have  done.  They  are  during  the  interim 
the  price  paid  for  establishing  the  commercial 
and  political  independence  of  the  country  ;  or 
may  rather  be  regarded  as  a  temporary  advance 
to  be  reimbursed  in  the  near  future  by  pro¬ 
ducing  a  sense  of  national  security,  a  wider 
field  of  profitable  employment  for  the  people 
at  large,  and  an  adequate  and  cheaper  sup¬ 
ply  of  better  goods  through  the  long  future. 
But  such  is  not  tne  case  with  all  duties. 
There  are  duties  that  are  taxes  and  must  re¬ 
main  so  forever,  or  into  that  far  future  whose 
possibilities  we  cannot  foresee.  Such  are  duties 
imposed  on  commodities  which  we  do  not  and 
cannot  produce,  but  which  enter  into  the  daily 
life  of  the  people,  either  directly  as  food,  or  as 
the  raw  material  of  articles  we  are  producing  in 
competition  with  countries  whose  laborers  re¬ 
ceive  not  a  moiety  of  the  wages  paid  for  the  same 
work  in  this  country,  and  which  are  necessary 
for  the  support  of  a  family  whose  children  are 
to  be  educated  for  future  citizenship.  We  raise 
no  tea  or  coffee,  and  the  duty  of  twenty-five  cents 
a  pound  on  tea,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  seventy- 
eight  and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  cost  of  our 
whole  importation  for  18G8,  and  of  five  cents  a 
pound  on  coffee,  or  at  the  rate  of  forty-seven 
and  a  half  per  cent,  on  the  importation  of  18G8, 
are  taxes — purely  and  simply  taxes.  Yet  the 
Commissioner  does  not  propose  to  repeal  or 
abate  these,  and  why  should  he?  Neither 
England  nor  her  North  American  colonies 
produce  tea  or  coffee.  Not  only  does  he  not 
propose  to  repeal  these  taxes  now,  but  in  his 
“schedule  of  a  tariff  constructed  with  a  view 
of  obtaining  from  the  smallest  number  of  im¬ 
ported  articles  an  annual  revenue  of  $150,- 
000,000”  he  retains  them  both  and  proposes 
to  raise  $22,000,000  a  year  from  them,  namely, 
$12,000,000  from  coffee  and  $10,000,000  from 
tea.  We  now  impose  a  duty  of  fifteen  cents 
a  pound  on  pepper.  As  we  grow  no  pepper, 
this  is  a  tax — a  tax  at  the  rate  of  two  hundred 
and  ninety-seven  per  cent,  on  the  entire  im¬ 
portation  for  1868,  and  which  extracted  from 
the  people  in  that  year  $792,490  45.  The  like 
duty  on  allspice  is  a  tax.  It  is  at  the  rate  of 
three  hundred  and  seventy-six  and  a  half 
per  cent.,  and  drew  from  the  people  in  18G8 
$142,981  50.  These  duties  and  many  scores 
of  such  that  I  could  indicate  are  all  taxes,  as 
they  stimulate  no  industry,  but  tax  the  food 


of  the  laborer;  but  they  do  not  move  the 
sympathies  of  the  Commissioner.  He  does 
not  propose  to  repeal  them,  for  the  articles 
they  burden  are  not  produced  in  England  or 
her  North  American  colonies.  They  were  im¬ 
posed  as  revenue  measures  during  a  great  war, 
and  have  been  cheerfully  endured  by  a  patriotic 
people,  but  they  increase  the  cost  of  living, 
operate  as  a  burden  on  our  laboring  people, 
and  should  be  repealed  at  the  earliest  day  the 
financial  condition  of  the  country  will  permit. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  other  taxes,  of  some 
of  which  the  people  justly  complain — taxes  that 
burden  our  labor,  consume  the  profits  of  capi¬ 
tal,  and  paralyze  the  energy  of  the  most  enter¬ 
prising  among  us.  They  add  to  the  cost  of  our 
gas  and  of  our  travel,  whether  by  railroad,  stage, 
or  steamboat.  We  cannot  draw  our  own  money 
from  bank  or  make  a  payment  to  our  creditor 
without  feeling  them.  They  touch  and  prick  us 
at  all  points.  Their  enforcement  requires  the 
maintenance  of  a  special  department  of  the 
Government,  the  agents  of  which  penetrate 
inquisitorially  every  home  and  workshop  in  tbe**-*.*. 
land.  They  increase  the  cost  of  all  pro¬ 
ductions  and  restrict  the  limits  of  our  comm^ece 
by  shutting  our  over-taxed  goods  out  of  markets*.  / 
in  which  but  for  them  we  might  compete  with 
our  foreign  rivals.  They,  too,  were  the  product 
of  the  war.  The  necessities  in  which  it  involved 
us  gave  rise  to  the  system  of  internal  taxes  with 
its  Commissioner,  assessors,  collectors,  super¬ 
visors,  detectives,  and  thousands  of  subord¬ 
inates  ;  and  sound  policy  requires  that  those 
duties  which,  while  they  protect  the  wages  of 
the  laboring  man  and  develop  the  resources 
of  the  country,  supply  the  Treasury  with  large 
amounts  of  revenue  sh-oulA  be  retained,  and 
that  these  direct  and  inquisitorial  taxes  which 
so  oppress  and  annoy  us  should  be  removed  as 
rapidly  as  possible.  The  repeal  of  these  would 
animate  all  our  industries  ;  but  the  repeal  of 
the  duties  recommended  by  the  Commissioner 
would  flood  our  country  with  the  productions 
of  the  underpaid  laborers  of  Europe, “''silence 
countless  looms  and  spindles,  close  our  fac¬ 
tories,  extinguish  the  fires  in  our  furnaces  and 
rolling-mills,  and  leave  the  grain  of  the  hus¬ 
bandmen,  for  which  there  is  now  no  market, 
in  Europe,  to  rot  in  the  field  or  granary,  while 
their  countrymen  and  former  customers  starve. 
However  ardently  Mr.  Commissioner  Wells 
may  desire  this  consummation,  I  trust  that 
Congress,  by  protecting  the  wages  of  the 
American  laborer,  will  forever  avert  it. 


